Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1801
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Lal, J.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Baldey Raj
Civil Writ Petition No. 3360 of 1996,
Decided On : OCTOBER 24, 2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to wages is based on the duties performed, supported by documentary evidence, and specific mentions in the impugned order.
Headnote:
Electrician - Employment Dispute - Punjab Government Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 - Labour Court order dated 28.11.1995 - The court held that the applicant is entitled to the wages of Electrician for the period from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1992 and directed the respondents to compute the difference of pay drawn by him as Cleaner and that of Electrician. The court dismissed the petition filed by the State of Punjab and others under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 28.11.1995.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Baldev Raj, was appointed as a Cleaner but claimed to have worked as an Electrician. The Labour Court held that he was entitled to the wages of an Electrician for a specific period and directed the computation of the pay difference.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had performed duties of an Electrician and was entitled to the wages payable to an Electrician for the specified period.
Issues: The issues included whether the application was barred by res judicata, whether the applicant had an existing right to make the claim, and whether the applicant was entitled to the amount claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on documentary evidence and specific mentions in the impugned order to support the finding that the respondent had performed duties of an Electrician and was entitled to the wages of an Electrician for the specified period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the Labour Court's order, stating that it was not proper to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This petition has been moved by the State of Punjab and others under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 28.11.1995 (Annexure P.9).
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Baldev Raj, respondent was appointed as Cleaner in the pay-scale of Rs. 30-1/2-35 in the month of December, 1962. He joined his duty as Cleaner on 21.12.1962. Till today, he is working as such in the office of the petitioner. As per Punjab Pay Commission Recommendation and Punjab Government Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, the option was sought. As per his option as Cleaner, his (workman-respondent) pay was revised accordingly. Now he is drawing pay of Cleaner in the scale of Rs. 800-1455/-, Basic pay Rs. 1280+25/-. The duties of Cleaner is to wash and clean the vehicle of the petitioner. He has been assigned the duties accordingly. He was never appointed/promoted as Electrician Class III post by the petitioner. There is only one sanctioned post of Electrician in the office of petitioner No. 2. Against this post, Tehal Singh, etc., have already been working as Electrician. The respondent-workman is illiterate. Lastly, it has been prayed that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the grounds embodied in this petition.
3. In the written statement, the respondent-workman has inter alia pleaded that the State has no cause of action to file this petition because the Labour Court in its order dated 28.11.1995 (Annexure P.9) has directed the State to pay wages with effect from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1992 for which the answering respondent has worked as Electrician. It is a finding offset returned in favour of the answering respondent. As per Ex.AW2/2 dated 23.10.1978, Ex.2/6 dated 14.5.1983, Ex.AW2/ 7 dated 27.4.1981, Ex.AW2/I dated 26.4.1985 and Ex.AW2/2/I dated 8.5.1992, the answering respondent has worked as Electrician for the aforesaid period. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
1) Whether the application is barred by res judicata?
2) Whether the applicant has no existing right to make the claim ?
3) Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed ?
4. After hearing the respective representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide order dated 28.11.1995 held that the applicant is entitled to the wages of Electrician for the period from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1992 and directed the respondents (the present petitioners) to compute the difference of pay drawn by him as Cleaner and that of Electrician to which he was entitled during the above said period. It was further directed that computation be supplied in tabulated form to this Court (referring to Labour Court) by 20.12.1995. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioners have preferred this petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer/Labour Court with due care and circumspection.
6. Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the petitioners strenuously urged that the respondent-workman being an illiterate person could not be appointed to the post of Electrician and that being so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further argued that in re : P.K. Singh and others vs. Presiding Officer and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1618, the workmen had claimed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the Act) that they should be classified as "B" Grade Fitters even though they had been appointed as "C" Grade Fitters on the ground that they had been performing the duties which were similar to the duties of "B" Grade Fitters. The Apex Court held that such a relief could not be claimed under the aforesaid Section. By merely doing the same kind of work which is done by a"B" Grade Fitter, a workman appointed as a "C"
