IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4695/1997. Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Versus Radhey Shyam & Ors. Date of Order:- January 15, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.P. Singh for the petitioner. Shri D.K. Bhardwaj for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. against the order passed by the labour court dated 24/1/1997 by which application of the respondent-workman filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay to him amount of Rs.18327/- together with interest @9% p.a.
This court while issuing notice, admitted the writ petition but did not passed any stay order. Learned counsel for respondent has at the outset informed the court that in compliance of the impugned order, respondent has been paid the aforesaid amount.
Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the respondent was merely on deputation with the petitioner and that he was an employee of the cadre authority, petitioner could not be held responsible for making payment. He was governed by the Rules of 1977. His salary was being paid from the cadre authority. Cadre authority was not impleaded as party before the labour court. Respondent while working with the Sahakar Samiti was illegally drawing the additional pay. Petitioner vide order dated 277/1981 has merely fixed the respondent in the pay scale of 370-590 and it was stipulated therein that he would be paid out of the fund of the cadre authority. Judge Labour Court has erred in law in holding the petitioner responsible for the additional pay. Pay fixation order dated 27/7/1981 was issued by the Registrar of the Sahahari Samiti under Rule 41 of the Rules of 1961 which was never challenged by the respondent.
Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the writ petition and submitted that while the respondent was working with the petitioner, petitioner made the payment of his salary and, therefore, only differential amount for which claim was raised, petitioner would be responsible for making payment. It was submitted that the order passed by the learned labour court does not suffer from any such infirmity as may warrant interference by this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and keeping in view the fact that working of the respondent with the petitioner is not denied even by the petitioner then, I do not find any ground to hold that the labour court has committed any error, muchless apparent error on the face of the record, so as to warrant interference by this Court. The plea that payment of the salary of the respondent was being paid out of the fund of the cadre authority may be a dispute inter-se between the cadre authority and the respondent, but the respondent cannot be deprived of the benefit of his due entitlement. Reasonings given by the Judge Labour Court in para 9 of its order are quite comprehensive, which do not require any interference.
I therefore do not find any merit.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil