V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) BY this Common order, we propose to dispose of four connected Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 1343, 1344, 1345 and 1346 of 1992. As the facts have been elaborately recited by the learned single Judge, there is no need to burden the present order by reiterating the same except in so far as, these are necessary to decide the sole question mooted out in the present appeals.
(2.) THE appellant -workmen filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') claiming retaining allowance for the off -season when they were laid off and the higher scales of pay as they had been working against clerical and other posts though appointed as kamdars. The aforestated claim of the workmen was hotly contested in their reply filed by the respondent -management by pointing out that the workmen had been appointed as kamdars purely on temporary basis on specified terms and conditions which they had accepted over a number of years and as such there was no merit in the application. It was also pleaded that there was no existing right in favour of the workmen which could be enforced through the application filed by them under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court, on the sole issue framed by it as to whether the applicants, i.e., the workmen were entitled to any of the amounts claimed held that the workmen had been employed during every season for at least 15 years in each case and their appointments were no longer temporary. Application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was, thus, allowed, vide order datedMay 6, 1991 (Annexure P -7). This award of the Labour Court was successfully challenged by respondent -management in civil petitions filed by it, thus giving rise to the present appeals impugning the order of learned Single Judge.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court and in particular, Singh (P.K.) v. Presiding Officer (1988 -II -LLJ -363), Heavy Engg. Corporation Ltd. v. Labour Court 1990 Lab IC 1057 and Harnam Chand v. Punjab University Printing Press 1990 76 FJR 320 to hold that 'Where a dispute is squarely covered by Section 10 of the Act, that cannot be determined by the Labour Court while exercising the powers under Section 33C(2), which are in the nature of execution proceedings, though the Labour Court is competent to interpret the award or the settlement in order to execute the same'. On facts, it was held that ' the respondent -management had denied that there was any settlement with the workmen that entitled them to the benefit of the recommendations of the Sugar Wage Board as the retaining allowance was to be paid only to seasonal permanent workers who had been specified, in the staffing pattern approved by the Board of Directors of the management and the Registrar, Co -operative Societies. The basis of the recommendations of the Wage Board was also denied by the respondent management and it was further available to unskilled workmen such as kamdars.;