C.W.P No.10153 of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.10153 of 1999
Date of Decision: 05.08.2009
State of Punjab and another .....Petitioners
Versus
The workman through President, CITU Union and another
....Respondents
Present: Ms. Monika Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab
for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Kapoor, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The award in challenge is a direction given by the Industrial
Tribunal, Chandigarh that the Greasers in R.S.D. Project would be
entitled to the scale of Rs.950-1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1995 with initial
start of Rs.1,000/- per month in that scale and that arrears of pay in
that scale shall become payable only from 01.09.1995.
2. Learned counsel for the State Ms. Monika Chhibbar
contends that the Government Circular issued on 04.04.1989 (Ex.M-1)
which sets down revision of scales of pay for work-charged
employees of the Department of Irrigation & Power, obtained to
Greasers a revision from Rs.300-430/- to Rs.750-1350/- and if the
workmen had any grievance against this fixation, the remedy would be
C.W.P No.10153 of 1999 -2-
only to apply to the Pay Commission for appropriate reliefs and the
Industrial Tribunal shall not have a power to re-write the scales of pay
for the benefit of the workman.
3. If the award had been merely on the plea of the Union
espousing the cause of the workmen that they shall be paid higher
scale than what was being paid to unskilled workers with no other
basis, then perhaps the reasoning of the Labour Court could be suspect
and would require an intervention. However, in this case, the award
takes note of the stand of the Department itself at various times
assessing the quality of work and the category to which the workmen
belonged. It was brought out on record before the Labour Court that
in the Monthly Construction Force Report issued by the Engineer
(Personnel Division), he had referred to the representations from
various classes of persons and the need for categorization into four
groups namely supervisory workman, skilled workman, semi-skilled
workman and unskilled workman. It can be noticed that Greasers have
been classified as semi-skilled workmen and under the unskilled
workmen, there are Beldars, Boatmen, Cartmen, Chowkidar, Cleaners
and Dak Runner. The further communications retain this
categorization at all times and the Greaser has been shown to be a
semi-skilled person while the unskilled persons were Beldars and
others referred to above.
4. The claim of the workman was while the unskilled workers
had been put on scale of Rs.750-1350, the persons such as the
Greasers whose work was technical in some sense could not be put on
the same scale. The Industrial Tribunal had the benefit of the
C.W.P No.10153 of 1999 -3-
evidence adduced before it and after assessing the quality of work
done and how it was different from unskilled labour had passed the
award fixing the scale of pay as Rs.950-1850/- and the arrears. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Industries Ltd. Vs. Brijander
Pandey AIR 1959 208; AIR 1997 SC 1 has stated that an Industrial
Tribunal exercising powers under Section 7A shall have even the
power to substitute contracts and write new contracts for the benefit of
the parties. Quoting Ludwing Teller that “industrial arbitration may
involve the extension of an existing agreement, or the making of a
new one, or in general the creating of new obligations or
modifications of old ones, while commercial arbitrations generally
concerns itself with interpretations of existing obligations and dispute
relating existing agreements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held,
“a Court of law proceeds on the footing that no power exists in the
Courts to make contracts for people; and the parties make their own
contracts. The Courts reach their limit of power when they enforce
contracts which the parties have made. An Industrial Tribunal is not
so fettered and may create new obligations or modify contract in the
interests of industrial peace, to protect legitimate Trade Union
activities and to prevent unfair practices of victimisation.”
5. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen refers me to the
provisions under Section 7-A of the Industrial Disputes Act which
empowers the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on any matter
specified in Schedule II or Schedule III. Schedule III includes among
other items, “the classification by grades” in Entry 7 as falling within
the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal. To him, when a definite
C.W.P No.10153 of 1999 -4-
reference had been made for determination of appropriate scales, the
Industrial Tribunal cannot shirk its responsibility and cow down to an
argument that it shall not fall within its jurisdiction to decide on the
appropriate scales for workmen. I accept the contention of learned
counsel appearing for the workman that the power exercised by the
Industrial Tribunal fell within its jurisdiction and there is no legal vice
attached to the award to be susceptible for intervention through writ.
6. Even without reference to the case as discussed, it is
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the workman that the
Government has also given effect to the scales as fixed by the
Industrial Tribunal and they have availed all such benefits. Having
regard to the subsequent development also, it shall be inequitable to
reverse the decision and seek the workmen to pay back what benefit
they have already obtained. Even on a pure issue of exigency, it shall
not be possible to reverse the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed and the award of
the Labour Court is confirmed. No costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
August 05, 2009
Pankaj*