Vijay Kumar Sharma vs Presiding Officer & 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 Award dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur, to the extent whereby the petitioner’s claim for extra wages for Saturdays has been restricted to the period from 03.03.2006 to 31.08.2006, instead of the period from 2001 to February, 2006 as claimed by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as an Octroi Clerk with the Municipal Committee, Pathankot, had performed duties on Saturdays during the period in question and was, therefore, entitled to extra wages in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.), Sirhind and others versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 15.03.2000, as also the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar and others versus State of Punjab and others.

Learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the impugned Award does not warrant interference. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Nagar Council, Samrala versus Ram Sanjeevan and others, LPA No.1178 of 2015, decided on 26.04.2016, the common judgment dated 23.08.2017 passed in a batch of 476 connected writ petitions, led by Municipal Corporation, Patiala through its Commissioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another, CWP No.4088 of 2015, and State of Punjab and others versus Shudish Kumar and another, CWP No.7826 of 2017 and 28 connected cases, decided on 02.08.2018. It is submitted that Field Staff, governed by distinct service conditions, cannot claim parity with Office Staff merely because the latter enjoy Saturdays as holidays. It is further submitted that the judgment in Sirhind (supra) cannot be mechanically extended beyond the particular service conditions considered therein.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The controversy in the present petition is confined to the petitioner’s claim for extra wages for the period from 2001 to February, 2006. It is significant that the learned Tribunal has not rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that an Octroi Clerk could never claim extra wages for working on Saturdays. Rather, upon consideration of the judgment in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.), Sirhind (supra), the learned Tribunal held the petitioner entitled to extra wages for the period found legally recoverable and accordingly granted the benefit from 03.03.2006 to 31.08.2006.

The learned Tribunal thereafter examined the period for which the monetary claim could be granted. The application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed on 03.03.2009. Applying the principle regarding the period for which monetary relief could be claimed in such proceedings, the Tribunal held the claim from 2001 to February, 2006 to be beyond the permissible period and accordingly restricted the benefit to the period from 03.03.2006 to 31.08.2006.

The subsequent judgments relied upon by the learned State counsel, namely Nagar Council, Samrala (supra), the common judgment dated 23.08.2017 in CWP No.4088 of 2015 and State of Punjab versus Shudish Kumar (supra), have also been considered. The said judgments lay down that the entitlement of Field Staff to wages for Saturday duty cannot be claimed merely by seeking parity with Office Staff, as the two categories are governed by distinct service conditions and the nature of their duties is also different. At the same time, since the petitioner herein was working as an Octroi Clerk, the judgment in Sirhind(supra) cannot be disregarded altogether. However, even assuming the petitioner to fall within the factual parameters of Sirhind, the said judgment does not dispense with the requirement that the monetary claim must be legally recoverable for the period for which it is sought. The learned Tribunal has already granted the benefit for the period from 03.03.2006 to 31.08.2006 and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any error in its approach insofar as the claim for the preceding period is concerned.

The petitioner, thus, has failed to demonstrate any error of law, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. The mere fact that the petitioner claims to have performed Saturday duty during the earlier period cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for enlarging the monetary relief beyond the period held legally recoverable by the Tribunal.

It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, this Court does not sit as an appellate Court over the findings recorded by an Industrial Tribunal. Interference is warranted only where the impugned Award suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case.

In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference with the Award dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure P-3). The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.