Madhya Pradesh High Court
Inder Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.11677/2007
Inder Singh Parmar & Others.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh.
Present : Hon'ble Ms. Vandana Kasrekar, J.
Mr. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Janvi Pandit, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
O R D E R
(11.08.2017) The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. The case was heard and decided in favour of the petitioners on 31.01.1998 and the Labour Court directed to reinstate the petitioners with further direction to provide permanency of post on which they are working. Against the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, the department has preferred an appeal before the State Industrial Tribunal, 2 W.P. No.11677/2007 Bench at Bhopal. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the Industrial Court by a common judgment dated 31.01.1998 and the same was dismissed. The order passed by the Labour Court has therefore has attained finality as the same was not challenged before the Higher Forum. Although the petitioner have already been reinstated back in service but they are not being paid the wages/salary/pay-scale which is attached to permanent posts against whom the petitioners are working. The petitioners therefore, filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondents have filed reply to the said application. After recording the evidence by both the parties, the Labour Court vide order dated 28.02.2016 has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner have filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 33C (2) of the Act. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings. It is further submitted that as per Section 33-C (2) of the Act "if any question arises as to the amount of money due then 3 W.P. No.11677/2007 it includes : (i) Whether there is any settlement or award as alleged ; (ii) Whether any workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money at all under any settlement or award ; (iii) If so, what the rate or quantum of such amount will be :" Thus, in the light of said provision, it is submitted that as the petitioners are entitled to receive money from employer and therefore, it was well within jurisdiction of the Labour Court to execute the award. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in the case of Mohar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 15.04.2015 as well as the decision passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Prashant Dharmadhikari and Others in W.A. No.1266/2010 decided on 01.11.2011, in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that in the cases where employee is classified as permanent employee against a particular post then, he shall be entitled to all the benefits attached to the post.
4. Respondents have filed the return and in the return, the respondents have stated that in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioners have been classified on permanent basis on different posts by the orders of the State Government.
4W.P. No.11677/2007
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioners have filed an application before the Labour Court for their reinstatement as well as for classification. The Labour Court has allowed the application preferred by the petitioners and directed the respondents to reinstate them with further direction to provide permanency against posts on which they are working. Against the said order, the department has preferred an appeal before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 31.01.1998 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents. Thereafter, as the respondents did not pay the wages/salary/pay-scale to the petitioners, who are attached to permanent posts, the petitioner therefore, filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Act. The Labour Court vide order dated 28.02.2006 has dismissed the said application as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid the petitioners have filed the present petition. That from perusal of Section 33C (2) of the Act, it is clear that if there is any dispute regarding the settlement or award or where any workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money at all under any settlement or award or thirdly, if so, what the rate or quantum of such amount will be, can be decided by the Labour Court under Section 5 W.P. No.11677/2007 33C (2) of the Act. The present case of the petitioners false under Clause-3 of the said disputes. As the services of the petitioners have been classified as permanent employee and therefore, they are entitled to get all the benefits attached to the post. It is also to be noted that the respondents in their reply to the said application has not denied the claim of the petitioners. In absence of refusal of the claim, the Labour Court was well within its jurisdiction and ought to have seen that under Clause -3 of the aforesaid wherein it is the finding of the Labour Court that any amount can be determined by outstanding rate or quantum of such amount. The findings of the Labour Court are contrary in nature. The Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. K.L. Kharbanda , AIR 1963 SC 487 has held that "Industrial Dispute Act- 33C(2)- benefit can include monitory benefit. There was a dispute between the parties as to the amount of that benefit, it was open to the workmen to apply to the labour Court for computation of that benefit in terms of money and the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the application and compute the amount due on the basis of the benefit conferred by the award. (See Paragraph-9). Thus, the Labour Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 33C (2) of the Act.
6W.P. No.11677/2007
6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of salary or wages, which is attached to post of permanent employee in the light of the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Prashant Dharmadhikari and Others in W.A. No.1266/2010 decided on 01.11.2011. The exercise be carried out within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. In case, the petitioners are found eligible then, the same benefit be extended to them.
(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar) Judge RC HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Writ Petition No.11677/2007 Inder Singh Parmar & Others.
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
ORDER Post it for : 11.08.2017 (Ms. Justice Vandana Kasrekar) JUDGE 10.08.2017