MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3198 and 3199 of 1994) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Municipal Committee, Mansa, against the common order of the Labour Court passed on 30. 7. 1993 on the petitions made by two workmen, Om Parkash and Shiv Dutt. Since the facts and the questions are similar, these are being decided by this common order. The facts relevant to Civil Writ Petition No. 3198 of 1994 shall, however, be discussed hereinafter.

(2.) THE workman joined service in the Municipal Committee, Mansa, as a Peon in the year 1982. The workman's case is that he was required to perform the duties of a Clerk at the Octroi post. He was, however, paid remuneration as payable to a Peon. Since he was not given the wages of a Clerk, he filed an application before the Labour Court on 7. 3. 1991 claiming wages under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act' ). Difference between the wages paid to him as a Peon and the wages payable to a Clerk was estimated at Rs. 15,000/ -. The Labour Court recorded the evidence and allowed the petition. The Municipal Committee, Mansa, was directed to calculate the wages of the workman right from the date of his posting till February 1991 at the rates which were permissible to the Clerks from time to time.

(3.) THE petitioner firstly raises a question about the applicability of section 33-C (2) of the Act. It is contended that the workman had no existing right to claim any difference of pay. The question of entitlement was very much under dispute and there did not exist any right to a benefit or money. The status of the employee was a contentious issue and it needed investigation whether the workman had been appointed or had been deputed to work as a clerk. The workman's plea regarding "equal pay for equal work" did not fall for determination within the ambit of section 33-C (2) of the Act. Section 33-C (2) of the Act comes into play where any workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit from his employer and where a question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which benefit should be computed. If these conditions are fulfilled, then the question may be determined by the Labour Court. The petitioner's plea is that the workman had based his claim regarding payment of wages on a presumption that he had been discharging the duties of a clerk from the time of initial appointment. This was a matter to be determined and, therefore, there was no existing right as such. Whether there was a right, that was itself a question for determination.