S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.9.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court U.T, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court'), whereby the application made by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') for payment of wages under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been accepted.
(2.) PUNJAB State Tubewell corporation is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is under the active control of Government of Punjab. The petition has been filed by the Managing Director of the Company on behalf of the Company. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the workman approached the Labour Court seeking inter alia that he is working as a Peon and has been wrongly not promoted to the post of Ferro Printer while his juniors namely Balbir Kumar and Sada Nand have been promoted. The learned Labour Court answered the reference in affirmative and held that the promotion of two junior persons was illegal. It was also held that the workman shall be deemed to have been promoted on the day when his juniors were promoted as Ferro Printers. It was categorically held by the Labour Court that it is clearly proved that there was promotion channel from the post of peons to be promoted as Ferro Printers and the workman has been wrongly ignored on the ground that there was no promotion avenue. The Labour Court further held that the name of the workman appears at Serial No. 83 of seniority list, whereas name of Balbir Singh is at serial No. 107 and that of Sada Nand is at Sr. No. 259. Thus, it is clear that the workman is senior to the two persons who had been promoted in the year 1983. Against this award, the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Management') filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14936 of 1992. This Court in its judgment dated 7.2.1995 held that it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that certain persons had been promoted as ferro Printers from the post of Peons and two persons namely Balbir Kumar and Sada Nand who had been so promoted were junior to Nitya Nand (workman) whose case had been espoused by the Union. This Court further observed that promotion of Balbir Kumar and Sada Nand should not have been set aside as they were not parties before the Labour Court. This Court upheld the award directing the promotion of workman from the date persons junior to him had been promoted. The Court observed as follows: - "The Labour Court had declared that Nitya Nand shall be deemed to have been promoted from the day when his juniors were promoted as Ferro Printers. It cannot be denied that the management in the instant case is a government company and is a 'State' for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution and it cannot, therefore, violate the rights guaranteed to Nitya Nand under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has also been found by the Labour Court that persons junior to Nitya Nand had been promoted as Ferro Printers. The direction given by the Labour Court that he too will be deemed to have been promoted with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted is unexceptionable and just and fair in the circumstances. This part of the direction cannot, therefore, be interfered with." Not satisfied with the directions given by this Court, the Management filed Civil Misc. Application No. 7299 of 1995 seeking the clarification of the order. This application was allowed and the Corporation was permitted to revert any employee, who according to it, had been erroneously promoted including Balbir Kumar and Sada Nand. It was further ordered that in case Balbir Kumar and Sada Nand were reverted, the very basis of the claim of Nitya Nand (workman) who raised the Industrial dispute through the Union would go and he too will not be entitled to promotion. Against this order, the Union filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 751 of 1996. This letters patent appeal was allowed on 8.10.1997 with the following observations: "A bare perusal of the extract of the orders dated 7.2.1996 which have been reproduced above, shows that while disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent -Corporation the learned Single Judge accepted the plea that the Labour/Court did not have jurisdiction to nullify the promotions of those who were not parties before it. However, without even recording a finding that the order dated 7.2.1995 suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of it, the learned Single Judge virtually reversed the order dated 7.2.1995 and authorised the Corporation to revert the employees who were not parties in the proceedings before the Labour Court or the High Court. While doing so, the learned Single Judge overlooked the principles laid down by the Apex Court for exercise of power of review and in our considered opinion, there was no occasion or justification for the learned Single Judge to have granted licence to the respondent -Corporation to revert the employees who wee promoted many years ago and who had no occasion to put forward there case either before the Labour Court or the High Court. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the order dated 9.2.1996 is erroneous in law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The respondent -Corporation shall pay cost of Rs. 5000/ - for indulging in unjust litigation. However, the direction given by the learned Single Judge qua Nitya Nand shall remain undisturbed." After decision of the letters patent appeal, the workman filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act seeking to recover the wages on the promoted post. This application has been allowed. Hence, the present petition. Mr. Puri submitted that the Labour Court while entertaining and allowing the application has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 33C(2) of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that it is well settled that the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings. In these proceedings, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputed claims. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the final paragraph of the award passed in reference No. 32 of 1989 on 18.6.1992 and submitted that the workman had not been ordered to be promoted with the benefit of wages on the promoted post. Therefore, the Labour Court could not have directed, in the impugned award dated 12.9.2000, the payment to the workman of a sum of Rs. 2,70,608/ - as difference of wages. It is further submitted that the workman not having worked on the higher post between 1983 till the date of the Award was not legally entitled to be paid the difference in wages. In support of the submission, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India , 1990(1) RSJ 238.
(3.) MR . Jain, learned senior counsel has submitted that the award of the Labour Court having been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in letter patent appeal No. 751 of 1996, the same had to be implemented by filing an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act. Grant of wages on the promoted post is only a consequential relief and, therefore, no adjudication of any disputed claim is involved in the matter. The deemed promotion of the workman having been upheld by the Division Bench, the Labour Court merely commutated the difference in wages between the original post and the promoted post. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the management cannot be permitted to make capital out of its own wrong. They have deprived the workman of an opportunity to work on higher post by illegally withholding promotion. The Management cannot now be permitted to urge that the workman can be denied the wages on the promoted post since has not worked on the promoted post. He is not entitled to salary on the promoted post. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. v. K. V. Jankiraman etc. etc ., 1991(5) S.L.R. 602. Learned senior counsel has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana , 1995(3) SCT 311 in which the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed: Thereafter, the learned senior counsel relied on another judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Vidya Parkash Harnal v. State of Haryana , 1995(3) SCT 785. Learned Senior counsel also relied on another Davison Bench judgment of this Court in Indraj Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. , 2001(2) S.L.R. 372.;