VICHITTAR VEENA VATS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, vide which an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, preferred by the petitioner-workman, has been declined.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that perusal of Rule 380 of the Staff Matters (Volume-I) although indicates that no pay and allowances are payable to the petitioner-workman during the period of extraordinary leave and the same is not to be counted for increments/provident fund but as per proviso attached thereto, the punishing authority or the competent authority can direct the period of extra ordinary leave to be counted for increments as well. He on this basis contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court that she would not be entitled to the claim as it is not a settled right which can be computed in the form of monetary benefits under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be sustained. He contends that there is no bar with regard to the claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, this finding as recorded by the Labour Court, is also not sustainable. Relying upon Annexure-P-5, which is a show cause notice, issued by the disciplinary authority, which is Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Zonal Office, Punjab, Chandigarh. He contends that since the disciplinary authority was made the respondent before the Labour Court, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court that the Bank has not been impleaded as a party respondent, also cannot be sustainable.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, only those claims which are settled and can be termed and calculated in the form of monetary benefits, can be allowed. He contends that the claim as made by the petitioner-workman in her application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been disputed by the respondent-management. The petitioner-workman had remained absent on un-authorised leave of 755 days out of which 324 days were upto 10.03.1987 and 431 days thereafter. Until this period is adjudicated upon and decided by the competent authority/court, holding the petitioner-workman entitled to the benefit of increments for the said period, the claim as made before the Labour Court, cannot be sustained.