UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT, UT CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of four identical writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 26448 of 2013, CWP No.26451 of 2013, CWP No.26454 of 2013 and CWP No.26470 of 2013 (Union Territory Chandigarh and another v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another), filed by the management against the identical orders passed by the learned Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the ID Act' for short) allowing the applications in favour of the respondents-workmen. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from CWP No.26448 of 2013.

(2.) The respondent-workman, while working with the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-cum-Director, Transport U.T. Chandigarh, moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act, vide Annexure P-1 claiming the difference of over time, based on the revised pay-scale from 1.1.2006. The petitioner-management filed its reply vide Annexure P-2. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman. Both the parties led their respective evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent-workman was squarely covered by two judgments of this Court. The respondent-workman was held entitled for the amount claimed, by passing the impugned order dated 4.3.2013 (Annexure P-4). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Labour Court proceeded on an erroneous approach, while passing the impugned order because the respondent-workman was not having any preexisting claim. Proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act were in the nature of execution, which would be available to the respondentworkman only if he had any pre-existing right or if the same was specifically provided under the statute. She further submits that learned Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order awarding the amount which was based on a disputed claim. She relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen and another, 1974 4 SCC 696. Finally, she prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.