Gurdev Kaur vs The Presiding Officer Labour Court and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the Presiding Officer Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 12.8.1993 and to direct the respondents to pay her the arrears of back wages of Rs. 61,430/- with interest @ 12% P.A. from 23.9.1985.

The petitioner was appointed as an Aya in a privately managed School known as Guru Nanak High School, Sector 30, Chandigarh in the year 1965. Her services were terminated in the year 1974. At the time of her termination, she was drawing a fixed salary of Rs. 90/- per month. She challenged the order of termination before the Labour Court, Chandigarh. The Labour court by its award dated 1.5.1989 held her termination illegal and allowed her full back wages from the date of Demand Notice i.e. 23.9.1985 and directed that she be reinstated in service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming Rs. 61,430/- from the Management on account of arrears of salary. According to the Management, the petitioner was serving on a fixed salary of Rs. 90/- per month at the time of her termination and back wages from 23.9.1985 to 17.7.1989 comes to Rs. 4156/-and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed. According to the Management, she was not entitled to Rs. 61,430.71 Ps. as claimed by her.

The Labour Court on a consideration of material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 4156/- and directed the Management to pay the same within two months from the date of order, failing which she will be entitled to interest @ 12% P.A.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the school known as Guru Nanak Primary School, Sector 19, Chandigarh, but after the passing of the award of the Labour Court, her service were taken in Guru Nanak Khalsa High School, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh against a vacant post from 18.7.1989. It is admitted fact that the school run by the Management at Sector 19 where the petitioner was originally appointed was not an aided school, but the school run by the Management in Sector 30-B is an aided school. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner''s original appointment was in the school in Sector 19, Chandigarh. The petitioner, who appeared before the Labour Court as PW-1 clearly stated that she was working as a Peon with Guru Nanak Khalsa High School, Sector 19, Chandigarh since 1965 and her Services were terminated in September, 1974. Thus, it is clear that at the time of her termination, the petitioner was working in a School located at Sector 19, which is an unaided school. After setting aside the order of her termination by the Labour Court, she was taken into service in Sector 30-B school. There is no dispute that from 18.7.1989 the petitioner is being paid the salary in accordance with the provisions of Grant-in-aid. The only dispute is in regard to the salary payable to the petitioner from the date of her termination i.e. 23.9.1985 to 17.7.1989. According to the petitioner she is entitled to the salary as per the scale of pay in the aided school, but according to the management, the petitioner was originally appointed only in an unaided school and she has been working only in an unaided school, therefore, is entitled to the salary which she was drawing at the time of her termination for the period 23.9.1985 to 17.7.1989. According to the management she was being paid Rs. 90/- per month as fixed salary and, therefore, she is entitled to Rs. 4156/-. Thus it can be seen that both the sides have taken extreme stands. The petitioner who has been appointed in an unaided school cannot claim the scale of pay on per with the employees of the aided schools. It is no doubt true that after the order of the Labour Court in the year 1989m the petitioner''s services were taken and she was appointed in aided school and she has been paid salary accordingly. But that does not give her right to claim salary prior to her appointment in the aided school on per with the employees working in the aided schools. As she has been originally appointed in an unaided school and her services were terminated while working in un unaided school, she is entitled to back wages from the date of the Demand Notice i.e. 23.9.1985 to 17.7.1989 on par with the salary which the employees of the unaided schools were getting during that time. Though a fixed salary of Rs. 90/- per month was being paid to the petitioner at the time of her termination, it is an admitted fact that management has been increasing the salary of its employees from time to time subsequent to the termination of the services of the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the same salary which a Peon was getting in an unaided school during the period from 23.9.1985 to 17.7.1989.

Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in part and direct the management to pay the arrears of back wages from 23.9.1985 to 17.7.1989 at the same rate a Peon, similarly situated as that of the petitioner was getting during that period in an unaided school. The Management is further directed to calculate this amount on the basis of salary which is being paid to a Peon in an unaided school during the period from 23.9.1985 to 17.7.1989 and pay the arrears thereof to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order. No order as to costs.