Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba Advocate Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court-ii Faridabad and - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16149 of 2013 Date of decision: 07.04.2014 Bhudutt ...Petitioner(s) Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

(Oral) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) vide which, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') was dismissed.

The reasoning that prevailed with the Labour Court, Faridabad was that as per the case of the petitioner himself, he was working as Branch Manager and drawing salary of `8,650/- and, therefore, was working in supervisory capacity and did not fall within the definition of workman as per the un-amended provisions of the Act.

Finding was also recorded that the claim of arrears of the increments and how the figure of `1,15,000/- became due, was never proved and even the primary duty was upon the petitioner himself.

The application was also held to be time barred having been filed on 06.11.2007 while arrears were claimed from 1996 to 2004, after a period of 3 years apart from the fact that there was an objection by Gupta Shivani the Audit also to the arrears as per the workman evidence of WW-2 Shri 2014.04.11 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16149 of 2013 -2- Niwas.

A perusal of the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act would go on to show that the petitioner himself had pleaded that he was Accountant-cum-Branch Manager and claimed annual increment arrears from 1996 to 2004 whereas admittedly, the petitioner had retired on 30.06.2005.

The petitioner during his service period had never agitated regarding his claims which were falling due annually to him.

Nothing has been pleaded specifically as to how he is entitled to the said increments.

Finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that he has not been able to prove on what account the sum was due.

The Labour Court has also taken into account the fact that once the petitioner was himself working in a managerial/supervisory capacity, he would not be entitled to claim himself to be a workman as per the definition under the Act since he was also drawing salary of `8,650/- per month, which was more than the salary of `1,600/- per month as per the un-amended provisions of the Act.

Once the petitioner was not a workman and he was doing the above said duties, the Labour Court thus would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the said issue.

The order passed is well justified and counsel for the petitioner could not show anything to the contrary to plead that the order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is without any basis and the same is dismissed in limine.

07.04.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Gupta Shivani 2014.04.11 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh