- (1.) The petitioner Punjab State Electricity Board ('Board' - for short) by way of the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 17.5.2006 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar (respondent No. 1). In terms of the said order, the respondent No. 2 workman has been held entitled to the scale of higher post for the period from 1.8.1993 to 17.12.1996 which has been computed at Rs. 44,600/- @ Rs. 1100/- per month.
(2.) The respondent No. 2-workman was appointed as Oil Cleaner with the Board on 26.8.1988. Thereafter, on 31.7.1991 he was authorized to work against the vacant post of Sub Station Attendant ('SSA' - for short) in his own pay scale of Oil Cleaner. He was then transferred from the post of Oil Cleaner on 6.7.1992 to work against the post of SSA in his own pay scale as Oil Cleaner. In terms of the Punjab State Electricity Board Technical Service Class-III Regulations, 1996 ('Regulations' - for short), 50% posts of SSAs are to be filled by promotion from amongst the Oil Cleaners. The remaining 50% are to be filled by direct recruitment. For promotion as SSA from amongst the Oil Cleaners, a minimum experience of working as Oil Cleaner for a period of five years is required. The promotion to the posts of SSAs is to be made on the basis of seniority-cummerit. As per the seniority list, respondent No. 2 workman was at Serial No. 3 in order of seniority and Shri Gurbax Singh and Tejinder Singh were above him at Serial Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 2 workman on 18.4.1994 submitted a representation to the effect that he had completed five years service as Oil Cleaner on 25.8.1993 and he may, therefore, be given the pay scale of SSA. The Superintending Engineer vide Order 10.12.1996 after consideration of the matter promoted respondent No. 2 as SSA at Serial No. 1. The claim of the two officials, who were senior to the respondent No. 2, was ignored. While relinquishing charge on 18.12.1996, respondent No. 2 in his charge relinquishing report (Annexure-P.1) had mentioned himself as Oil Cleaner. In the joining report submitted on 19.12.1996 (Annexure-P.2) respondent No. 2 again stated that the order for his promotion from Oil Cleaner to SSA had been issued. According to the petitioner-Board the said communications show that respondent No. 2 never claimed himself as SSA earlier and he had willingly worked against the post of SSA while drawing the salary of Oil Cleaner. In the circumstances, it is submitted that respondent No. 2-workman is estopped from claiming higher salary of SSA for the period from 1.8.1993 to 17.12.1996. However, respondent No. 2 on 24.5.2000 filed an application before the Labour Court (respondent No. 1) claiming that he was entitled to be paid higher salary as SSA from 1.8.1993 to 17.12.1996, even though as per his own statement (Annexure-P.3) he had completed requisite period of five years as Oil Cleaner on 25.8.1993. The petitioner-Board on receipt of notice from the Labour Court (respondent No. 2) filed its written statement (Annexure-P.4). A preliminary objection was taken that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' - for short) filed by respondent No. 2 was not maintainable. The contents as submitted in the application in fact were a subject-matter of dispute because prior to 18.12.1996 no order had been passed for regular promotion of respondent No. 2 as SSA. Therefore, he was not entitled to the pay scale of the higher post of SSA. The claim for payment of higher salary as SSA from 1.8.1993 to 17.12.1996 was denied. The Labour Court vide its order dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure-P.5) accepted the claim of respondent No. 2-workman and held that he was entitled to the pay scale of SSA for the period from 1.8.1993 to 17.12.1996 @ Rs. 1100/- per month which can be computed as Rs. 44,600/-. Accordingly, the application of respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was allowed, which is assailed by way of the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Board has submitted that there was dispute between the parties as regards the entitlement of respondent No. 2 for the scale of SSA and that too from 1.8.1993. Therefore, the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable as the same is to be filed by way of execution of a predetermined right or benefit i.e. an entitlement which has already been determined or adjudicated by the competent authority. Strong reliance is placed on State of U.P. and another v. Brijpal Singh, 2005 SCC(L&S) 1081 to contend that the procedure provided under Section 33C(2) of the Act is in the nature of execution and cannot be claimed in the absence of pre-determined right or entitlement.;