Shangare Singh Vs Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Ludhiana

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 1 Nov 2000 Civil Writ Petition No. 6102 of 1983 (2000) 11 P&H CK 0264
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Civil Writ Petition No. 6102 of 1983

Hon'ble Bench

S.S. Sudhalkar, J

Advocates

Parminder Singh, for the Appellant;

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226#Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.@mdashBy this petition, workman is challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 12.11.1982 (copy Annexure P/2) which

it has passed u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Earlier the services of the petitioner was terminated but

he was reinstated by the order of the Labour Court. The petitioner did work thereafter. The question of pay is for the period 15.9.1981 to

31.10.1981. the Labour Court has awarded the pay for the above period at the rate of Rs. 243.75 per month. The petitioner states that his pay

should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The petitioner contends that he was reinstated as Mechanic Grade II. The Labour Court

has held that he was apprentice Mechanic and, therefore, given the pay at lesser rate.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the impugned order of the Labour Court in which it has been mentioned that as per the

written statement, petitioner was reinstated as Mechanic Grade II. A copy of the written statement filed before the Labour Court is also produced

in this case. Respondent-employer has stated that in pursuance of the award, the petitioner joined as Mechanic Grade II. In para 9 of the writ

petition, it has been stated by the petitioner that before termination of the service, he was drawing Rs. 424/-per month and after reinstatement h is

pay cannot be reduced and all Mechanics Grade II are drawing the pay in the pay scale Rs. 400-600 and the pay of the petitioner cannot be less

than Rs. 480/- per month. In reply to that para, it has not been denied by the respondent that the petitioner was drawing Rs. 424/- per month and

in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600, he will be entitled to Rs. 480/-. As a result, there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner on this point. The rate of

pay should be treated as Rs. 480/- per month and the amount should be calculated at that rate.

3. In the result, this petition is allowed. The pay of the petitioner be calculated by respondent No. 1 for the period from 15.9.1981 to 31.10.1981

at the rate of Rs. 480/- per month. If any amount has been paid to the petitioner in compliance with the impugned award, the said amount be given

credit of.

4. Petition allowed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Read More
Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Read More