- (1.) The State of Punjab and its officers have filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 26515 of 2013) filed by the appellants challenging the award dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) rendered by the Labour Court, Bathinda, allowing the application of the respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed. Though there is delay of 330 days in filing the instant appeal and the appellants have filed an application (CM No. 4174-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and gone through the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) Undisputedly, in this case, the respondent-workman was working with the appellants on daily wage basis, for the last more than 25 years. He claimed that he should be given minimum wages, as prescribed for Class IV employees. A dispute was raised in this regard by other similarly situated workmen, which was referred to the Labour Court vide Reference No. 45 of 1990. Vide award dated 05.12.1990 (Annexure P-2), the reference was decided in favour of the workmen. The said award was upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and it was held that the workmen, who were working on daily wage basis should be paid the minimum wages being given to the Class IV employees. When the respondent-workman, who was similarly situated, was not granted the said benefit, he approached the Labour Court by filing an application (Annexure P-5) under 33-C(2) of the Act. Finding the respondent - workman to be similarly situated as the workmen whose matter had been decided right upto the Apex Court, the said application was allowed by the Labour Court vide award dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) and the appellants were directed to pay wages to the respondent-workman in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appellants challenged the said award by filing the aforesaid writ petition. Only one argument was raised that the respondent workman was not having any pre-existing right, therefore, his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was not maintainable. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge, while observing as under:- "It is undisputed on record that the similar controversy was earlier decided by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 5.12.1990 (Annexure P-2). The said controversy was set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide above said-order 29.10.1993 (Annexure P-4). It is also not disputed that the respondent-workman was working as Class-IV employee with the petitioner-management. In this view of the matter, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-management that the respondent-workman was not having pre-existing claim has been found to be factually incorrect and without any force. Once the matter had already attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was totally unjust and unreasonable on the part of the petitioner-management to deny the similar claim of the respondent-workman. Thus, the action of the petitioner-management was not legally sustainable and the learned Labour Court rightly came to the rescue of the respondent-workman, while passing the impugned order, which deserves to be upheld. It is an unhealthy practice and unwarranted approach on the part of the managements like the petitioner that in spite of the similar claim having been granted by the court of competent jurisdiction in favour of similarly situated employees, another employee who might not have been party to the earlier litigation would still be forced to approach the Court. In such a situation, the employer would be under legal obligation to consider and appreciate such an identical claim of another co-employee on the basis of the earlier order or judgment rendered by the court of law, which would be squarely covering the case of such a co-employee. If the matter is considered and appreciated in this manner, it would save the public time, public money as well as unwarranted harassment to the genuine claimant like the respondent-workman in the present case, besides reducing the avoidable litigation. Since the petitioner-management failed in its duty to consider and grant the genuine claim of the respondent-workman, the learned Labour Court committed no error of law while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld." In the order, it was specifically observed that except the aforesaid one argument, no other argument was raised. Against the aforesaid order, the instant appeal has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. However, he submitted that the workman-respondent was not working as 'Beldar', therefore, he could not have been given the benefits, as were ordered to be given to the workmen by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;