State of Punjab through Chief Engineer (Irrigation Wing) Ranjit Sagar Dam v. The Assistant Collector Grade-I and Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur & Ors.

Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the writ petition is for setting aside of the impugned Order dated 18.02.2008 and Order dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1 and Annexure-P-1/A respectively), vide which in compliance with the implementation of the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, Award dated 08.12.1999 (Annexure-P-2) with respect to the respondents/Workmen (hereinafter referred to as “the Workmen”), Recovery Certificate has been issued by the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, as also thereafter, the attachment of works head of the petitioner/Management (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”), vide Order dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1/A). Counsel for the Management contends that the Award dated

08.12.1999 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), vide which the Workmen were held entitled to reinstatement in service with two years continuity thereof C.W.P. No. 4807 of 2008. -2- and back wages to the extent of 25% from the date of reference of respective Workmen till their reinstatement. Counsel for the Management contends that in compliance with the Award, passed by the Labour Court, the Workmen did not report for duty nor did they submit their joining reports in the year till 2008. The earlier joining reports were also received by post and the Workmen had never personally presented themselves for deputing them. She contends that as per the Award, which is sought to be implemented through the impugned Orders and Recovery Certificate has been issued on an application under Section 32-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the said Orders cannot be sustained in the light of the fact that there is no adjudication on the fact as to whether the Workmen had submitted their joining reports after the Award was passed or not ? She contends that the Award does not speak of consequence in case the Workmen report for duty and they are not taken back in service. She, therefore, contends that the impugned Orders deserve to be set aside. Her further contention is that the calculations as has been made by the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur/respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with the Award. Her further contention is that the amount, which is claimed by the Workmen, has been disputed by the Management before the Authorities under the Act and, therefore, without adjudication of the matter, recovery certificate has been issued for getting the recoveries effected from the Management, cannot be sustained. In any case, she submits that when there is a dispute between the parties on the quantum of amount to which an employee is entitled to and the employer has to make the payment, the same has to be claimed under Section C.W.P. No. 4807 of 2008. -3- 33-C(2) of the Act. She on this basis contends that the impugned Orders deserve to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for Workmen submits that in the year 2000 itself after passing of the Award dated 08.12.1999 (Annexure-P-2), the Workmen had submitted their joining reports, but the said joining reports were not taken on record nor were the Workmen allowed to join the duties. The result thereof was that the Workmen had no option, but to file an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Act. On submission of the said application, the Competent Authority under the Act proceeded to get the Award enforced with regard to the Workmen and accordingly on earlier two occasions on the claim submitted by the Workmen, recoveries were effected from the Management and on both these occasions, none of the claims as made by the Workmen were disputed as the amount was duly paid to the Workmen. He contends that till

31.08.2003, the claims submitted by the Workmen has already been satisfied and thereafter, when the Workmen were not allowed to join their duties, further an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Act was moved before the Competent Authority, claiming benefits of the wages from 01.09.2003 to 30.04.2007, which amount was assessed by the Competent Authority as Rs. 19,11,900/-. He on this basis contends that the Management cannot be allowed now to dispute this claim of the Workmen after having acceded to the calculations made by the Competent Authority under the Act. His further contention is that as per Section 33-C(1) of the Act, the Collector is entitled to not only enforce the Award passed between the parties, but can also after taking into consideration get the money recovered due from the employer on the basis of the Settlement/Agreement, which has been entered into between the parties. He submits that the Competent Authority has on the basis of the Agreement entered into between the C.W.P. No. 4807 of 2008. -4- Employees Union of the Ranjit Sagar Dam and the Management granted the benefit as has been claimed by the Workmen and, therefore, no jurisdictional error can be said to have been committed by the Competent Authority, which would call for any interference by this Court. The minutes of the meeting dated

01.03.1995 has already been placed on record before the Competent Authority in its proceedings. He on this basis contends that the Orders impugned herein deserve to be upheld. His further contention is that in compliance with the Award, as there was no stay granted by this Court, the amount stood deposited with the Assistant Collector Grade-I, which has also been disbursed to the Workmen and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the impugned Orders. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the impugned Orders Annexure-P-1 and Annexure-P- 1/A would clearly show that the recovery of amount is being effected from the Management in implementation of the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, Award dated

08.12.1999. The Award passed by the Labour Court is silent about the situation where the Workmen fail to report for duty and also if they are not taken back in service. Further there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the fact as to on which date the Workmen had submitted their joining reports and reported for joining. There being a serious dispute on this aspect as also a dispute with regard to the amount, to which the Workmen would be entitled to, because the claims are disputed both by the Management and Workmen with regard to quantum of amount. That apart, a perusal of the Award would show that the Award does not take into consideration the Agreement, which is being sought to be taken support of by counsel for the Workmen, while claiming wages from

01.09.2003 to C.W.P. No. 4807 of 2008. -5-

30.04.2007. The Orders of recovery, which are impugned in the present writ petition, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The present writ petition is allowed. Impugned Orders dated

18.02.2008 and 03.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1 and Annexure-P-1/A respectively) are set aside. It is, however, made clear that in case the Workmen put forth their claims through an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, observations if any, made by this Court shall have no bearing on the claims of the Workmen. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 09, 2010. sjks.