Kuldeep Singh vs The Managing Committee And Others

CWP-31646-2026 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(117) CWP-31646-2026
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
KULDEEP SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE ROHTAK DISTRICT
TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure
P-11), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar
(respondent No.3), whereby the petitioner's application under Section 33-C(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
seeking recovery of alleged unpaid wages has been dismissed.
2. By way of the aforesaid application, the petitioner had claimed
an amount of Rs.2,20,612/- towards wages for the period from September,
2016 to December, 2018, calculated at the rate of Rs.7,879/- per month, along
with interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is that he had
been working with respondent Nos.1 and 2 since the year 1998, initially as a
Bus Conductor and subsequently as a Bus Checker. He had earlier raised an
industrial dispute, which culminated in Reference No.R-148/2005. During the
pendency of the said reference, the petitioner made a statement before the
Labour Court on 02.08.2012 that nothing remained due towards him from the
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.05 09:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-31646-2026 - 2-
management, whereupon the proceedings were brought to a close. The
petitioner, however, asserted that he was subsequently taken back into service
by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide letter dated 02.11.2012 and was assigned the
duties of Adda Incharge, followed by those of Bus Checker. According to
him, although the respondents paid his wages up to August, 2016, no wages
were paid thereafter till December, 2018, despite his having continued to
discharge duties during the said period. Accordingly, he instituted the
subsequent claim proceedings on 29.01.2019, seeking recovery of the
aforesaid amount.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned
Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the claim by relying upon the statement
made by the petitioner in the earlier reference, without appreciating that the
said statement pertained to the dues arising out of the earlier proceedings and
had no bearing upon the subsequent period of employment. It is further
submitted that the petitioner had placed sufficient documentary evidence on
record, including the attendance registers, waybills and daily checking
reports, which demonstrated that he had continued to discharge duties with
the respondents. It is, thus, contended that the learned Tribunal failed to
properly appreciate the evidence available on record and the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
relevant material on record.
6. At the outset, it would be apposite to notice the scope of
jurisdiction exercisable under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The provision
contemplates computation, in terms of money, of a benefit to which a
workman is already entitled under an existing right. Though the Labour Court
is competent to determine incidental questions necessary for such
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.05 09:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-31646-2026 - 3-
computation, the provision does not confer jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a
substantive entitlement which itself is disputed and requires independent
adjudication. In other words, the jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is
essentially in the nature of execution and cannot be invoked as a substitute for
proceedings seeking adjudication of the very foundation of the right claimed.
The distinction has been explained by the Supreme Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another, (1995) 1 SCC 235.
7. In the present case, the dispute was not confined to the mere
calculation of wages allegedly payable to the petitioner. The very basis of the
claim, namely, whether the petitioner had continued to remain in employment
and had actually discharged duties with respondent Nos.1 and 2 during
September, 2016 to December, 2018, was specifically disputed. The
respondents denied the subsistence of the employer-employee relationship
and contested the petitioner's entitlement to the amount claimed. Thus, the
petitioner was required to establish the foundational facts giving rise to the
alleged monetary entitlement before seeking its computation under Section
33-C(2) of the Act.
8. The learned Tribunal examined the pleadings and the evidence
led by the parties and noticed that the earlier reference, bearing No.R-
148/2005, had culminated in the petitioner's own statement dated 02.08.2012
that nothing remained due towards him from the management. The
proceedings were accordingly brought to a close. Admittedly, no award
directing reinstatement of the petitioner was passed in those proceedings. It is
true that the earlier statement, by itself, could not operate as a waiver of any
independent entitlement arising out of a subsequent engagement. However,
once the petitioner asserted that he had been taken back into service
thereafter, the burden lay upon him to establish not merely the factum of such
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.05 09:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-31646-2026 - 4-
engagement but also that he continued to discharge duties during the specific
period for which wages were claimed.
9. In this regard, the petitioner has also relied upon the letter dated
02.11.2012 (Annexure P-3), which, according to him, evidences his
subsequent engagement as Adda Incharge. However, even if the said
document is taken into consideration in support of his assertion of having
been taken back into service in November, 2012, it does not, by itself,
establish that he continued to work with the respondents throughout the
period from September, 2016 to December, 2018. The subsequent continuity
of employment and actual discharge of duties during the period in question
still required to be established by cogent evidence. The mere existence of a
document relating to an earlier engagement cannot, without more, establish
an uninterrupted entitlement to wages for the entire subsequent period.
10. The learned Tribunal further noticed that the petitioner had relied
upon documents marked as A to H, including the identity card, attendance
sheets, waybills, daily checking reports, an application stated to have been
submitted before the management, the documents relating to the earlier
compromise and a duty report. However, the evidentiary value of these
documents was specifically examined. The documents marked as Ex. AX and
Ex. AY, stated to be copies of the statement and order in the earlier
proceedings, were found to contain discrepancies in the dates and particulars
recorded therein. During his cross-examination, the petitioner was confronted
with the said documents and acknowledged that the dates mentioned in them
were not consistent. The learned Tribunal, therefore, considered these
discrepancies while assessing the credibility of the petitioner's version.
11. The learned Tribunal also examined the application marked as H,
which the petitioner claimed had been received by one Hari Parshad Sharma
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.05 09:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-31646-2026 - 5-
on behalf of the management. The said person was not examined by the
petitioner to establish the alleged receipt of the application. More importantly,
the original application was not produced despite specific directions issued by
the learned Tribunal. The photocopy relied upon by the petitioner was
disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal also noticed that the Notary Public,
who had attested the photocopy of the documents, had been summoned but
did not appear, and the application seeking action in that regard was
ultimately disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2023. In these circumstances,
the learned Tribunal was justified in examining the authenticity and
evidentiary worth of the said document with due caution. Mere reliance upon
a photocopy, particularly when its authenticity and the alleged receipt are
disputed, cannot conclusively establish the petitioner's assertion of having
continued in employment.
12. Equally, the attendance registers, waybills and daily checking
reports relied upon by the petitioner did not satisfactorily establish the claim
for the entire period in question. The attendance registers relied upon
pertained to the years 2014 and 2015, whereas the claim in the present
proceedings commenced from September, 2016. The daily checking reports,
on the other hand, related to particular dates in August and September, 2016.
Even these documents were produced as unattested copies. The petitioner did
not take effective steps to summon the original attendance registers, waybills
or checking reports from the management, nor was any witness examined on
behalf of the respondents to establish the authenticity and correctness of the
documents relied upon by him. The learned Tribunal, therefore, found that the
best available evidence had not been brought on record and drew an adverse
inference against the petitioner. Significantly, the documents relied upon,
even if considered at their face value, did not establish the petitioner's
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.05 09:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-31646-2026 - 6-
continuous discharge of duties throughout the entire period of 28 months for
which wages were claimed.
13. It is also pertinent to notice that the learned Tribunal had
afforded opportunities to the parties to lead evidence. The petitioner's
evidence was closed on 03.03.2025, whereas the evidence of respondent No.2
was closed on 17.09.2025. Respondent No.1 was also afforded opportunities
but failed to examine its witness, whereupon its evidence was closed on
05.03.2026. However, the failure of respondent No.1 to examine a witness
cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of the petitioner's claim. The initial
burden to establish the alleged engagement and actual performance of duties
during the relevant period continued to rest upon the petitioner. The absence
of rebuttal evidence cannot substitute for proof of facts which the petitioner
was required to establish in the first instance.
14. Viewed cumulatively, the material on record does not establish
the petitioner's alleged continuous engagement with the respondents during
September, 2016 to December, 2018 or his entitlement to the wages claimed
for the said period. The learned Tribunal has not dismissed the claim merely
on the basis of the statement made in the earlier reference. It has also
examined the subsequent engagement asserted by the petitioner, the
discrepancies in the documents relied upon, the failure to produce the original
application marked H, and the absence of satisfactory proof of the alleged
performance of duties during the relevant period. The contention that the
earlier statement was confined to the previous proceedings, therefore, does
not by itself dislodge the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the
petitioner's failure to establish his subsequent claim.
15. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.05 09:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-31646-2026 - 7-
appellate Court over the findings recorded by an Industrial Tribunal and
cannot undertake a fresh appraisal of the evidence merely because another
view may be possible. Interference is warranted where the findings are
perverse, based on no evidence, suffer from a manifest error of law or
jurisdiction, or otherwise disclose an error warranting exercise of the
constitutional jurisdiction. The principles governing such interference have
been explained by the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S.
Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477.
16. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, this Court finds no
perversity, jurisdictional infirmity or manifest error of law in the impugned
order. The learned Tribunal has considered the rival pleadings, examined the
oral and documentary evidence and assigned reasons for declining the
petitioner's claim. Its conclusions are based upon the material available on
record and represent a possible view of the evidence. No ground warranting
interference in exercise of the writ or supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is,
therefore, made out.
17. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the
same is dismissed.
18. Civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, pending shall also
stand disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
November 02, 2026
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.05 09:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment