MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. LABOUR COURT, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Puja Banga, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioner before the Labor Court denied this fact and contended that the opposite party was appointed as a Junior Clerk and was also being paid the wages of that post. The Petitioner further denied the fact that the opposite party was working as a Law Assistant. The Petitioner further contended that the application under Section 33C(2) was not maintainable since the claim was not based on any existing right or entitlement.

(3.) The Labor Court, after considering the material and documentary evidence brought on record, found even though, the opposite party was appointed as a Junior Clerk but he was working as a Law Assistant and that the Petitioner was not only addressing the opposite party as a Law Assistant but was also seeking legal opinion from him in various matters. The Labor Court, consequently, on the basis of the documentary evidence held that the workman was entitled to receive the pay of Legal Assistant. The Labor Court, consequently, directed payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 1.25 lacs along with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.