BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD, CHANDIGARH Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the employees of the petitioner Board are entitled to House Rent Allowance.

(2.) The respondents have been working as patrol men in the petitioner- Board. They made an application to the Labour Court, Jalandhar under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming house rent allowance. The said application was allowed by the Labour Court by the impugned order on the ground that the workmen have been residing in their own villages which are within 8 K.Ms. from Ropar town.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the place of residence is not material for granting house rent allowance under the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab which have been adopted by the petitioner Board. What is material for granting house rent allowance is place of duty and according to the petitioner-Board the place of duty of the respondents is beyond 8 K.Ms from Ropar town. Therefore, they are not entitled to house rent allowance. Before the Labour Court, the respondents have not placed any material to show that their place of duty falls within 8 K.Ms. The Labour Court proceeded on the basis that their place of residence is within a distance of 8 K.Ms. from the periphery of Ropar town and that is the basis for allowing the claim of the respondents for house rent allowance. The Sub Divisional Officer of Nangal Dam Division of the petitioner-Board filed an affidavit stating that the respondents had been performing patrolling duty on the canal from R.Ds. 137538 to 168318 and R.D. 137538 is about 20 K.Ms. from Ropar town whereas RD 168318 is situated at a distance of more than 10 K.Ms. from Ropar town. It is specifically denied that the beat of the respondents falls within 8 K.Ms. from Ropar town. The respondent, as already stated above, have not placed any material before the Labour Court or in this Court that their place of duty falls within 8 K.Ms. from the periphery of Ropar town except a vague averment in the written statement that their place of duty is not at Bharatgarh, but it is a beat from Ghanauli to Bharatgarh which falls within 8 K.Ms. from Ropar town. Therefore, I am of the view that it can safely be taken that the place of duty of the respondents falls beyond 8 K.Ms. from the periphery of Ropar town. At this stage, it is useful to refer to the instructions of the Punjab Goverment issued on 15.3.1973 (vide Annexure P-5) wherein the substituted instructions read as follows :-