CWP No. 2596 of 2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (234) CWP No. 2596 of 2019 Date of Decision: 03.9.2026 The Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam & Shahpukandi .....Petitioner Dam Construction Versus Balwant Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.9.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the application filed by the private respondents under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been partly allowed. 2. Learned State counsel appearing for the petitioner-management 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. 3. Learned State counsel further submits that respondents No. 1, 3 to 16-workmen 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. 4. Learned State counsel also submits that the claim for deputation allowances as sought by the respondents No. 1, 3 to 16 (workmen) was GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.09 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 2596 of 2019 -2- 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. 5. This Court has examined the rival submissions, as made by learned State Counsel, and has perused the entire case file. 6. The relevant facts qua which there is no wrangle amongst the parties concerned, are that, respondent No. 1, 3 to 16 (workmen), filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Annexure P-1) for grant of following benefits, alongwith 12% interest:- “1) Deputation Allowance w.e.f. 10.05.2010 to 13.05.2011 @10% of pay i.e. Rs.1015/- per month amounting to. Rs. 12,180/- 2) Transfer Travelling Allowance from Shahpurkandi to Malerkotla and Malerkotla to Rs. 16,000/- Shahpurkandi 3) Local Travelling Allowance from 10.05.2010 to 13.05.2011 @ Rs.40/- per day amounting to Rs. 12,000/- Total amount Rs. 40,180/-” 7. The said application was contested by the petitioner- management by filing a reply (Annexure P-2/T). 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 to respondent No. 1, 3 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:- “That the applicants were sent on deputation from the o/o respondent No.1 i.e. Chief Engineer/RSDC to the o/o respondent No.2 i.e. Managing Director, PSTC, Chandigarh. Before sending on deputation, terms and conditions were executed between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. As per the terms & conditions, the applicants will not be entitled for deputation allowance but the applicants will be entitled for Transfer Travelling allowance as per Government instructions issued from time to GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.09 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 2596 of 2019 -3- time and local travelling allowance as per PSTC Rules which are to be paid by the respondent No.2 i.e. Managing Director PSTC, Chandigarh. As regards, uniform & washing allowance, the same is being drawn by the applicants alongwith their monthly salary.” 8. 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 traveling 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 respondent No. 1, 3 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 traveling and local traveling 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 the relevant claims upon the petitioner, while declining only the claim for deputation allowance. 9. 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. 10. The controversy raised in the present petition is, in fact, squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP-6091-2016, titled GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.09 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 2596 of 2019 -4- “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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE September 03rd, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.09 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh