BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT Vs. PRITAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh as also its Chairman have filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the Award passed by the Labour Court on February 3,1984.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that respondent-workman was employed as Beldar in Roads Section of the Township Division (Irrigation Wing) BBMB at Nangal since October 4, 1964 in workcharge capacity. Petitioner-management purchased a Road Roller for construction and repair of service roads but did not engage any operator or driver and rather chose to utilise the services of respondent-workmen. When, however, he was not being given the salary that is payable to operator or driver of Road Roller, he demanded the said relief from die Management and asked for computation andrecovery of the difference between the salary of Beldar and Road Roller Operator for the period from February 1,1972 to June 30,1980. This claim was made in application filed by him under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The claim of respondent- workman was resisted by the petitioner-management before Labour Court and it was denied that the services of respondent-workman were ever utilised as Road-Roller operator. The only question mooted out thus was as to whether respondent-workman had actually worked as Road-Roller operator for a period as claimed by him or for any period or he did not work on the said post at all. After recording evidence of both the parties, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court came to a firm conclusion that respondent-workman was actually carrying out the duties of road roller operator and, thus, he was entitled to the pay admissible to Road Roller Operator. While recording the finding as mentioned above, not only that the deposition of a co-workmen was taken into consideration but Exs. W-4 and W-5 which were applications of the workmen to the Executive Engineer concerned for being absorbed to the post of Road Roller Operator as also Budget Estimate report for the year 1980-81, Ex. P7 which contained the proposal for creation of the post of Road Roller and that the existing incumbent who was Beldar and was doing a fine job should be absorbed against the post as it would save the exchequer from unnecessary Financial strains, were also taken into consideration. The said report alongwith suggestion was approved by the concerned authority on September 12, 1980 as it was evident from Ex. P-6. In face of this over- whelming evidence which came into being prior to when by the solitary witness who appeared on behalf of the Management was ignored.

(3.) Mr. Bawa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-management, however vehemendy contends that the management has been made to suffer by ignoring material evidence which is available on the records of the Tribunal. He has taken me through the cross-examination of respondent-workman as also his co-workman, who appeared as PW-2. He has also taken me through the statement of sole witness, who appeared on behalf of the Management. Even though it is not permissible to disturb the finding of fact in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India particularly when the same has been arrived at after considering the records of the case, yet I have gone through the statement made by workman as also his co-workman and the sole witness, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner-management. Besides the fact that these statements were taken into consideration by the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, it would not being the fitness of things to disturb the findings recorded by the Labour Court, Mr. Bawa has not been able to point out any major discrepancy which might detract from the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The further contention of Mr. Bawa that this claim was not permissible under Section 33- C(2) of the Act as the right of the workman was in dispute, therefore, the only course open to him was to seek reference under Section 10(i)(c) of the Act, based upon the judgment of Supreme Court in P.K. Singh and others vs. Presiding Officer and others, 1988 3 SCC 457 has also no substance in view of the proved facts of this case.