Municipal Council vs Baljinder Kaur and Another

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 21.8.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed u/s 33(C)(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, the petitioner Municipal Council has approached this Court by way of instant

petition under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order. During the

course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his strenuous arguments, could not dispute one material fact as well as legal aspect of

the matter that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme court in Municipal Employees

Union (Regd.), Sirhind and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2000 (9) SCC 432. and Nagar Council Kapurthala Vs. Davinder Kumar and

others, (2012) 10 SCC 280 as well as the Division Bench order of this Court passed on 5.9.2001 in CWP No. 7223 of 2001 (The Punjab State

Karamchari Dal, Sangrur Vs. The State of Punjab and others).

Learned counsel for the petitioner painstakingly argued that the learned Labour Court had fallen in serious error of law while awarding interest

on the due amount, which was not warranted in the fact situation obtaining in this case. However, the submission made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, though seems to be attractive at the first blush, yet the same has been found to be fallacious after deep examination of the matter.

To so say, the simple but strong reason is that the impugned order was passed way back on 21.8.2012 and the petitioner-Municipal Council

had enough time to comply with this order, so as to avoid the payment of interest, which was ordered to start after expiry of six months. Neither

the petitioner sought any extension in time for making the payment in question, nor the payment was actually made. No reason, whatsoever, is

forthcoming in this regard.

Further, after hearing the learned counsel at considerable length, careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to

the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. No jurisdictional error or patent

illegality apparent on the record has been pointed out. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the learned Labour Court has committed no error of law

and the impugned order deserves to be upheld.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has

been made out. Resultantly, the present writ petition is ordered to be dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.