CWP No.17045 of 2008 and
CWP No. 17086 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17045 of 2008
Date of decision September 7, 2009
Muncipal Corporation Faridabad through its Commissioner.
....... Petitioners
Versus
Parsu son of Sh. Nathu Ram and another.
........ Respondents
` CWP No.17086 of 2008
Date of decision September 7, 2009
Muncipal Corporation Faridabad through its Commissioner.
....... Petitioners
Versus
Jagdish son of Sh. Nathu Ram and others.
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Arvind Rajotiai, Advocate
for petitioner.
Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
****
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? No
****
1. Both the writ petitions address the same issue and
they are disposed of by a common order.
CWP No.17045 of 2008 and
CWP No. 17086 of 2008
2. The order in challenge is one of direction to the
respondent to pay the wages as per the pay scale granted to the workman
from the date of issuance of appointment letter. The objection from the
Management against that order was on the basis that all these workmen
were employed at a time when the regular employees had gone on strike
and when they found that the regular employees were not returning to
service, employment had been given to them on regular basis. It is
admitted even by the counsel for the petitioner that in the order of
appointment of the workmen on regular basis, it was not subject to any
condition that if the batch of employees who had stuck work and who had
not resumed were to resumé duty, their services would be terminated.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is also that the workman could not have claimed any relief under
Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If there was any
condition regarding the engagement, it was only stated that the workmen
were put on probation and that their services were liable to be terminated
at any time without any notice. It is nobody’s case that the workman was
being terminated by operation of the above clause. On the hand, the
Management only wanted to contend that by virtue of the settlement
entered into with the previous batch of workmen, they had to give
employment to them and therefore the services of all the workmen who had
subsequently been employed were not necessary. They were being paid
only daily wages. So long as the workmen had not been terminated in any
manner that is lawfully provided under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the workman were entitled to treat themselves as in
service and claim the wages as provided in the order of appointment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also
contends that the workman can have no remedy before the Labour Court
CWP No.17045 of 2008 and
CWP No. 17086 of 2008
under Section 33 (c)(2). In my view, such objection is not tenable since I
have already pointed out that there is no order terminating the services of
the workmen. The order passed in the circumstances was perfectly
justified.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in a
similar batch of cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted stay. As
regards this particular order which is impugned, admittedly there is no
proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the powers of this Court
cannot be fettered by any interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
6. The writ petitions are therefore, dismissed
confirming the order already passed by the Labour Court.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
September 7, 2009
archana