LUDHIANA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having perused the order passed by the Labour Court in proceedings under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it cannot be said that a positive finding has been recorded that the workman discharged duties and responsibilities of the higher post of Store Keeper (Products) during the period asserted in the claim application. The Labour Court declined the application finding that the workman had no pre-existing right to the difference of pay of the post of Store Keeper (Products) and that of Assistant Store Keeper to which post he was promoted earlier.

(2.) Mr. Bansal appearing for the workman vehemently argues that the observations of the Labour Court in the claim application are not mere observations but are findings of fact which have become res judicata between the parties. I am unable to agree with this contention which has only to be noticed and rejected. It was for the workman to plead and prove in the proceeding under S. 10 of the ID Act that he had shouldered and discharged duties and responsibilities of the higher post of Store Keeper (Products) in all respects with wholesale identity of work but he did not lead any fresh evidence in the subsequent proceedings and depended on the documents produced in the previous litigation and transported to the subsequent proceeding.

(3.) Mr. Bansal has produced a copy of the written arguments placed before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Punjab but that paper cannot be taken as a substitute for evidence on record produced by adopting the prescribed mode of proof.