TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 20.1.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the benefit of special increments granted to the appellants, who were working at Ranjit Sagar Dam in various capacities, has been rightly withdrawn and re -fixation of their pay has been rightly done. Consequently their retiral benefits have also been rightly re -fixed/readjusted. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the earlier judgement rendered in CWP No. 5568 of 2008 decided on 27.5.2009 alongwith other bunch of petitions held that recovery cannot be made because there was no mis -representation or fraud played by the appellants. In that regard, the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana and others (2009) 3 SCT 333 has been followed. The learned Single Judge also found that the earlier view taken in the judgement dated 27.5.2009 has been approved by the Letters Patent Bench while deciding LPA No. 1161 of 2009 on 8.9.2010 alongwith other appeals and the observations made by the Letters Patent Bench were binding.

(2.) THE argument advanced on behalf of the appellants has been rejected by the learned Single Judge namely that once the Labour Court had computed the benefits under Section 36(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') and the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed then no right of re -fixation would accrue to the respondents. The learned Single Judge observed that the Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act did not determine any substantive rights of the parties and accordingly the computation of wages as per the sanctioned scale was no bar to rectify the mistake.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at a considerable length and are of the view that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Letters Patent Bench has already disposed of LPA No. 1161 of 2009 on 8.9.2010. We are also bound by the aforesaid decision. Even otherwise there is no question of law which may warrant admission of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.