C.W.P No.5708 of 1989 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.5708 of 1989
Date of Decision: 06.07.2009
The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation
Limited (MARKFED), Chandigarh through its Law Officer
.......Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another
....Respondents
Present: Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Garg, Advocate
for the respondents.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The management challenges the award passed by the Labour
Court upholding a petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of a workman,
who claimed to be a Ginning Supervisor and whose services had been
previously terminated on 24.07.1980. By a settlement entered into
between the parties, the workman was directed to be reinstated.
According to the workman, he was not accommodated in the same
post which he had previously held but he was offered a job as clerk
which he refused. Thereafter, he moved a petition before the Labour
Court for execution of the award dated 21.03.1983 under the terms of
which the workman was to be absorbed in the same post.
2. It transpires that for the period when the workman was not
C.W.P No.5708 of 1989 -2-
allowed to join in the same post even when he was willing, he filed a
petition under Section 33-C(2) for the period April, 1983 to February,
1986. The award upheld the claim of the workman, which was
challenged by the management in C.W.P. No.10387 of 1988. The writ
petition was dismissed in limine on 22.11.1988 and it is represented
by learned counsel for the respondent that even a Special Leave
Petition filed by the management against the said judgment was
dismissed.
3. On the same token of reasoning as it enabled the workman
to claim the wages for the period from April 1983 to February, 1986,
he filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) claiming wages for the
period from March 1986 to January, 1988. It is this award upholding
the claim of the workman that is again made the subject of challenge
in the writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
workman and in my view, correctly, that the defence by the
management both as regards the claim period from April 1983 to
February, 1986 as well as for the period which is the subject matter in
the writ petition, the defence was the same namely that the workman
did not offer himself for work and that the petition itself could not be
maintained under Section 33-C(2) and the petition could be filed only
under Section 33-C(1). These objections by the management have
already been rejected when an award was passed upholding the claim
for the earlier period from April 1983 to February, 1986 that stood
affirmed upto the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court against C.W.P.
No.10387 of 1988. It is not possible to take a different view other
than how the Labour Court dealt with the issue and the management
C.W.P No.5708 of 1989 -3-
cannot persist in a plea which was previously rejected by the Courts.
The writ petition is, therefore, without merits and the petition
challenging the award is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
July 06, 2009
Pankaj*