S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions are directed against order dated 30.04.05 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. Saharanpur in favour of Dayaram Verma, respondent no.2 in each writ petition under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. The cases were registered as Misc. case no.91 of 2004 and 92 of 2004. Through the first case it was pleaded that an amount of Rs.5630.40 was due against the petitioners as arrears of salary of respondent no.2 from 1.10.1988 to 3.12.1989 and from 01.04.1990 to 30.09.1990. Initially services of respondent no.2 were terminated on 10.04.1986, thereafter labour court set aside the termination order on 01.11.88 and gave the award of reinstatement with back wages in favour of respondent no.2. Thereafter writ petition was filed in this Court in which conditional stay order was granted directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.2. Accordingly, respondent no.2 was reinstated on 8/30.11.1989 and, thereafter, he retired on 31.07.92.
(2.) THROUGH the other case i.e. Misc. case no.92 of 2004 it was stated that after reinstatement he was not paid proper pay scale, D.A., earned leave and bonus. Under these heads an amount of Rs.42584.30 were demanded. It was also stated that the petitioners wrongly reinstated respondent no.2 on the post of Co-operative Kamgar instead of Co-operative supervisor. Through the impugned order applications of the respondent no.2 were allowed. The impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside on the following three grounds:- 1. In view of Supreme Court Authority reported in (2007)11 Supreme Court Cases 756 U.P. Zila Sahakari Bank Limited Vs. Addl. Labour Commissioner and Ors in the matter of disputes in between Cooperative Societies governed by U.P. Cooperatives Act 1965 and their employees, Industrial Disputes Act or U.P. Industrial Dispute Act has got no application and no such dispute can be adjudicated by labour court. 2. Demand was made after undue delay of 12 years hence it was barred by laches. 3. The grievance that workman was wrongly appointed on a lower post even though he ought to have been appointed on a higher post and the workman was wrongly paid salary in lower pay scale while he deserved placement and payment of salary in higher pay scale are such questions which cannot be decided under Section 33-C(2). They pertain to entitlement and not simple computation. Such disputes are not cognizable under Section 33 C-2 vide The Bombay Gas Co. Ltd., v. Gopal Bhiva and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 752,Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs. the Workman 1974(4) S.C.C. 696, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Rajak 1995(1) SCC 235, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Birendra Bhandari. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3220 (in this case it was held that salary under the pay scale recommended by 5th pay Commission could not be adjudicated and awarded under Section 33-C(2).Union of India and Anr. v. Kankuben (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1784, State of U.P. Vs. Briz Pal Singh 2005 (8) S.C.C. 58. Tara and Ors Vs. Director Social Welfare 1999 L.I.C. 228(S.C.), State Bank of India Vs. R.C. Dubey 2001(1) S.C.C 1973, P.K.Singh Vs. Presiding Officer 1988 (3) S.C.C. 457. In the authority of Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank mentioned under point no.1 (supra) it has also been held that disputed claims cannot be adjudicated under Section 33 C(2) of I.D. Act or Section 6-H of U.P.I.D. Act. 3. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.;