MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANGRUR Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, the petitioner Municipal Council has approached this Court by way of these 20 writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order . Since the facts as well as question of law involved in these cases are exactly the same, this batch of 20 writ petitions is proposed to be disposed of vide this common order.

(2.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his strenuous arguments, could not dispute one material fact as well as legal aspect of the matter that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 9 SCC 432 and Nagar Council Kapurthala Vs. Davinder Kumar and others, 2012 10 SCC 280 as well as the Division Bench order of this Court passed on 5.9.2001 in CWP No. 7223 of 2001 (The Punjab State Karamchari Dal, Sangrur Vs. The State of Punjab and others).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner painstakingly argued that the learned Labour Court had fallen in serious error of law while awarding interest on the due amount, which was not warranted in the fact situation obtaining in these cases. However, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though seems to be attractive at the first blush, yet the same has been found to be fallacious after deep examination of the matter.