JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The challenge is to the award at the instance of the Government that provides for payment of special allowance to drivers in addition to the project allowance which they were receiving for being in a project in Ranjit Sagar Dam.
(2.)The learned counsel appearing for the State Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma made pointed reference to the proceedings of the Deputy Secretary Finance No. 3/58/91-S FPII/A5059, Government of Punjab, which while extending the benefits of special pay of Rs. 150/- per mensem to all the drivers working in the departments excepted their application to the driver, who are already drawing project allowance. The objections of the learned counsel for the Government were two fold; (i) there had been no express challenge to the proceedings and the Labour Court did not have a power to grant the relief of special allowance to drivers who are in the project when the proceedings of the Government itself allowed for such differential treatment; (ii) the drivers in the project were already receiving project allowance for their hazardous duties on the project, besides field allowance and therefore if it was a case of discrimination, it was on the basis of intelligible differentia viz. that persons who were already receiving another type of allowance for their hazardous duties shall not be entitled to special allowance at all.
(3.)The learned Senior counsel appearing for the workmen, Shri Kanwaljit Singh would contend that although the proceedings of the Government had not been specifically challenged by means of a writ petition, the Labour Court was justified in seeing whether the particular proceedings of the Government that excluded certain class of persons from receiving special allowance were justified or not, by the fact that the reference by the Government to the Labour Court itself provided for an adjudication whether the drivers and operators working under the project were entitled to special pay @ Rs. 150/- per month. An answer to such a reference, according to the learned counsel for the workman, would have to examine the validity of the proceedings of the Government. There was nothing inherently wrong about such an adjudication, for, according to him, the definition of "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) included any dispute or difference between employer and employees which was connected with the employment or nonCivil employment or the terms of employment and the condition of labour. Adverting to the powers of the Labour Court under Section 7(A), the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the constitution of an industrial tribunal for an adjudication could be for any of the matters specified in 2nd schedule or the 3rd schedule. The 3rd schedule to the Act refers to compensatory and other allowances in serial No. 2 as a matter which would fall within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunal. According to him, therefore, the validity of exclusion of special allowance to drivers who were already receiving project allowance was really a subject that could be adjudicated by the Labour Court. In my opinion, the power of the Labour Court to undertake such an exercise is well-founded. By making a conjoint reading of the definition of "industrial dispute" that could be referred to an industrial tribunal, which tribunal would adjudicate on matters relating to schedule 3 that included a dispute relating to any allowances, the inference is inescapable that the labour tribunal has the power to render an adjudication on the dispute. I, therefore, reject the contention made on behalf of the Government that industrial tribunal will not have jurisdiction to decide on the dispute relating to the admissibility of special allowances and hold that while considering such a subject, it could well decide on the validity of an exclusion made under the proceedings of the Government.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.