Industrial Dispute Act-1947

2001-I-LLJ-185 (SC)

Between
Management of English Electric Co. of India

And
V. Manohara Rao & Others

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Secs. 33, 33-A and 33C(2) - Industrial dispute not pending - Only claim petition pending - No illegal termination of services - Hence Labor Court's order set aside.

HELD: Aplain reading of Sections 33 and 33-A of the I.D. Act makes it clear that it is only during the tendency of any proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute provisions of Section 33-A would be attracted and not otherwise. The Labor Court totally lost sight of the aspect that there was no industrial dispute but only a claim petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was pending.

Appeal allowed.
.....................................................

1. APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION



Section 33 C(2) Adjudication of question of existence or non existence of master and servant relationship is outside the purview of this Section.



Petitioner claimed wages for certain period before the Labour Court through an application under Section 33 C (2) of I.D. Act. The management disputed master servant relationship. Also, it was pointed out to the Court that the worker has raised a dispute regarding the refusal of employment to him and that dispute is still pending. Labour Court held it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The worker approaches the High Court.



Held: The Labour Court has no jurisdiction under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act to examine and adjudicate the dispute as to whether there is master and servant relationship between the management and the worker, basing on which the question of payment of wages would arise. (Para 4) Shankar Rao B.M. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chickmagalur. [1999]



Section 33 C(2) Section provides remedy to workman only for recovery of amounts due to him If his right is disputed, he is not entitled to lay claim under Section.



Held: The High Court further observed that the management had disputed the right of the petitioner for the privilege leave and had successfully proved before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not entitled to the leave. Hence he was not entitled to lay his claim under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act. (Para 12) Rajan T.K. v. Labour Court, Ernakulam. [1999]



2. BACK WAGES



Section 33 C(2) Backwages can be computed in application by workmen ordered to be reinstated Such computation cannot be treated as conferring any new right upon workmen.



Held: The High Court negatived another contention of the petitioner Bank that the impugned order was not valid, as proceedings under Section 33 C(2) were only in the nature of execution proceedings, and since the order directing reinstatement was silent on the point, award of back wages could not be made in applications under Section 33 C(2). The High Court observed that by awarding backwages, in those application, no new right in favour of workmen had been determined. (Para 12) State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey. [1999]



3. JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT



Section 33 C(2) Employee claiming overtime allowance for service rendered at Ratnagiri Petition under Section 33 C(2) filed before Nasik Labour Court Nasik Court had no jurisdiction to deal with matter.



Held: This petition challenging a decision of the Nasik Labour Court that it had jurisdiction to decide an application of the respondent employee, was allowed. The High Court observed that the claim of the respondent regarding overtime allowance did not relate to the period of his service within the jurisdiction of the Nasik Labour Court. Hence it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim. (Para 4) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shrikant V. Ingale. [1999]



4. MISCELLANEOUS



Section 33 CM Amount due to workman has to be computed within 3 months Dues so computed and certified has to be collected within reasonable period Tardiness of Government in collecting amount indicated.



Held: This petition by a workman was necessitated as the sum of nearly 2 lakhs of rupees certified by the Labour Court as due from the respondents to petitioners under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act was not recovered as the Government (Collector) pleaded inability to auction the respondents property. The High Court described this plea as too facile and allowed the petition. It observed the dues of workman should be collected within reasonable time. (Paras 2 and 3) Islam Ali v. D. Dayaram & Co. [1999]



5. WAGES/PAY/SALARY



· Section 33 C(2) Minimum Wages Act, 1048Section 20 Dispute on deduction from wages Remedy under Section 33 C(2) is available to workman Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act not applicable.(Para 17 )

.............................................

33C. RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE FROM AN EMPLOYER. - (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VB, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue :

Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer:

Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months.

Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.

(3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case.

(4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1).

(5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen.

Explanation : In this section "Labour Court" includes any Court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State.

............................................