HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to dispose of CWP No. 5389 of 1989 titled as The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and others filed by the Management challenging the order dated 15.12.1988 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the respondents-workmen have been held entitled to arrears of salary as are being paid regular employees, despite the workmen being working on daily wage basis, from the date of application moved before the Labour Court and CWP No. 5388 of 1989 filed by the Management challenging the award dated 15.12.1988 with only difference that the workman herein was working on a consolidated salary of Rs. 200/- per month and CWP No. 9332 of 1989 titled as Nanu Ram and others v. The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh and another and CWP No. 9323 of 1989 titled as Amar Nath Vats v. The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., and another, filed by the workmen challenging this very award on the ground that they were entitled to the same salary as given to the regular employees from the date of appointment of these workmen instead of from the date of application.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner in CWP Nos. 5389 and 5388 of 1989 has submitted that the application moved by the workmen under Section 33-C (2) itself was not maintainable on the ground that there was no predetermined right nor was there any adjudication determining the salary which the workmen were entitled, which would call for an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that in the light of the fact that the application itself was not maintainable, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. He further submits that it has been authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006 2 SCT 462 that there can be different wages for different category of employees such as daily wagers, work charge and regular employees. He, therefore, submits that the respondents-workmen were not entitled to the same salary as was being granted to the regular employees. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the application moved by the workmen was maintainable in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., 1964 AIR(SC) 743, wherein it has been held that Section 33-C(2) takes within its purview cases of workmen who claimed that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers.

(3.) With regard to CWP Nos. 9332 of 1989 and 9323 of 1989 Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, who is counsel for the petitioner in the said cases, submits that the court has erred in granting them the benefit from the date of application whereas once it has been determined that they are entitled to the same wages as has been granted to the regular employees, the said relief should have been granted to the workmen from the date of their initial appointment on the respective posts.