The Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam & Shahpurkandi Dam Project vs Vikram Singh & Ors.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure P-7), whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal partly allowed the claim raised by respondents No.1 to 16 (workmen) under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Learned State counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no pre-existing right flowing from any service rules, therefore, same cannot be granted in application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Learned State counsel further submits that the respondents are employees of the petitioner-management, which is a Government establishment, and are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It is, therefore, contended that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute and not an industrial dispute.

Learned State counsel also submits that the claim for deputation allowances as sought by the respondents No.1 to 16 (workmen) was specifically disputed by the petitioner and, therefore, such disputed claims could not have been determined by the Industrial Tribunal in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-management and submits that the terms and conditions governing the deputation of the workmen specifically provide for payment of travelling allowance, local travelling/daily allowance, uniform and washing allowance and other admissible benefits, except deputation allowance. It is further submitted that the petitioner-management itself acknowledged the entitlement of the workmen to the aforesaid allowances and cannot now take a contrary stand. Learned counsel submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal rightly considered and granted the admissible claims under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order.

This Court has examined the rival submissions, as made by learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents-workmen concerned, and has perused the entire case file.

The relevant facts qua which there is no wrangle amongst the parties concerned, are that, respondents No.1 to 16 (workmen), filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 (Annexure P-1), for grant of following benefits, alongwith 12% interest:-

The said application was contested by the petitioner-management by filing a reply (Annexure P-2). In the said reply, the petitioner-management only disputed with the demand raised at point No.1, i.e. the claim pertaining to deputation allowances. However, the remaining entitlements of respondents No.1 to 16 (workmen), were duly admitted by the petitioner-management. The relevant extract from the preliminary submissions, in the reply filed by the petitioner-management is reproduced hereinafter:-

Thus, the material position emerging from the petitioner's own reply is that there was no dispute as regards the entitlement of the workmen to the uniform and washing allowance, transfer travelling allowance and local travelling allowance. The only claim which was specifically disputed was that pertaining to deputation allowance. The learned Industrial Tribunal, by passing the impugned order, partly allowed the claims of the respondents No.1 to 16 (workmen) under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and declined only the claim for deputation allowance in view of Clause 10.21(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. However, the learned Tribunal held the workmen entitled to uniform, washing, transfer travelling and local travelling allowances and directed the petitioner, being their parent department, to pay the same. The said finding was also supported by the admission of RW1 regarding their entitlement to such allowances. Thus, the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability for Claims Nos. 2 to 4 upon the petitioner, while declining only the claim for deputation allowance.

In these circumstances, the principal objection raised by the petitioner-management regarding the jurisdiction of the learned Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C(2) of the Act does not merit acceptance. The Tribunal has not granted the disputed claim of deputation allowance; rather, the said claim was expressly declined. The relief granted pertains to those allowances, the entitlement to which stood acknowledged by the petitioner-management itself in its reply.

The controversy raised in the present petition is, in fact, squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP-6091-2016, titled “The Chief Engineer v. Kamal Singh Driller and others”, decided on 24.03.2026. In that case also, the petitioner-management had challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C(2) of the Act in respect of claims arising out of deputation. The management had disputed the claim for deputation allowance while admitting the entitlement of the workmen to the remaining allowances. This Court, after considering the rival submissions and the material on record, found no ground to interfere with the order of the Industrial Tribunal.

The factual position in the present case is materially similar. The learned Tribunal has itself declined the claim for deputation allowance and has granted only those benefits whose entitlement was acknowledged by the petitioner-management. Therefore, the objection that the Tribunal travelled beyond the limited jurisdiction available under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is not borne out from the record.

In view of the aforesaid position, and keeping in view the judgment of this Court in CWP-6091-2016, this Court finds no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

All miscellaneous pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.