RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned communications of even date, i.e. 11.9.1992 (Annexure P-3 and P-4), petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the action of the respondents, reducing the daily wage amount of the petitioners from Rs. 37.15/- to Rs. 31/-. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as Assistant Pump Operators with the respondent department on daily wages basis. They were paid the wages at the rate of Rs. 37.75/- per day. When their wages were sought to be reduced by the respondent department, petitioners approached the learned Labour Court by moving applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act' for short). After hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that action of the respondent-department, reducing the wages of the petitioners was not justified. Applications of the petitioners were allowed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 1.6.1992 (Annexure P-1) and 6.9.1991 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that the orders passed by the learned Labour Court were not challenged by the respondents and the same became final between the parties. In spite of the orders passed by the learned Labour Court vide Annexures P-1 and P-2, the impugned notices Annexures P-3 and P-4 were issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 4, whereby wages of the petitioners were again sought to be reduced. Reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners relying upon the above said orders passed by the learned Labour Court. Since the wages of the petitioners were still being sought to be reduced despite the above said orders passed by the learned Labour Court, it became a compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued and reduction in wages was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.9.1992. When nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 16.12.1992. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.