Delhi District Court
Naveen Filters Pvt Ltd vs Dinesh Kumar on 15 May, 2026
DLCT130052142021
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER-06, LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURT, D.D.U. MARG, NEW DELHI.
LCA No. 1448/2021
Date of Institution 23.12.2021
Date of Award 20.03.2026
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Dinesh Kumar (age about 47 years)
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Singh,
R/o A-116, Gali No. 3, Part-1,
Mukand Pur, North West Delhi,
Delhi 110042
Mobile No. 8750568116
Email id: [email protected]
Presently residing at:
E-85, Gali No. 7, Pakki Gali,
Saroop Nagar, Delhi-110042
AND
BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT
1) Naveen Filters Pvt. Ltd.
LCA No. 1448/21 Page 1 of 28
Through its Managing Directors
2) Sh. Bhagwan Das Kataria (Managing Director)
Age About 62 Years
R/o: 21/4, Street No. 7, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi 110042
M: 9313505346
Email id: [email protected]
3) Sh. Ashok Kataria (Managing Director)
Age About 58 Years
R/o: 21/4, Street No. 7,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi 110042
M: 9811084929
Email id: [email protected]
4) Sh. Amit Kataria (Director)
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das Kataria
Age About 32 Years
R/o: 21/4, Street No. 7,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi 110042
M: 9891235416
Email id: [email protected]
5) Sh. Manish Kataria (Joint Director)
S/o Sh. Ashok Kataria
Age About 28 Years
R/o: 21/4, Street No. 7,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi 110042
M: 9711664668
Email id: [email protected]
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the statement of LCA No. 1448/21 Page 2 of 28 claim as filed by the workman directly in labour court under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') against the managements for seeking directions to the managements to provide service benefits i.e. gratuity, PF, pay for public holidays, casual leave, sick leave, privilege leave, annual leave and earned leave etc. for about 31 years totaling to an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest and cost.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPLICATION
2. In the application, the applicant stated that since the management no.1 was dealing in manufacturing of filters of motor vehicles in the name of Naveen Filters Industries through its managing directors who have been stated as management no.2 to 5. He further claims that he joined as an employee with the management no.1 as a Plating, Coating, Cutting, Machine Operator and also supervising other works w.e.f. 25.10.1990. It is further stated that the management no.1 was employed 60-70 employees and workman being one of the senior most employee was drawing a salary of Rs.14,000/- and he was also granted ESIC benefits w.e.f. 01.09.2010 and was also issued a temporary identity certificate and identity card. After having worked continuously for about 31 years without any complaint, the workman due to some LCA No. 1448/21 Page 3 of 28 personal problems tendered his resignation to the management no.1 through a letter and requested for payment of benefits liable to be provided to him as per policy and stated in the prayer clause.
2.1 In spite of receiving resignation letter, the managements neither cleared nor paid benefits of the services/work of the workman and thus, the workman sent a legal notice dated 28.08.2021 by way of speed post as well as courier demanding outstanding sum of Rs.15,00,000/- against the service benefits.
2.2 It is further alleged that instead of making payment, the managements sent a legal notice/reply dated 30.09.2021 falsely alleging that the workman worked only upto 23.01.2009 and collected his full and final payment by way of a receipt and a voucher and stated that his last drawn wages were Rs,3683/- per month.
2.3 As the workman was not satisfied with the reply of the management, he filed the present application claim and he is entitled for a payment of Rs.15,00,000/- from the managements against gratuity, PF, pay for public holidays, casual leave, sick leave, privilege leave, annual leave and earned leave etc. on LCA No. 1448/21 Page 4 of 28 account of resignation.
REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. Upon receipt of application, notice of the same was directed to be issued upon the managements vide order dated 23.12.2021 and the managements entered appearance on 17.02.2022 i.e. the next date of hearing and filed written statement. In the written statement, the managements challenged the maintainability of the present application under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also stated that the claim pertaining to gratuity, PF and various types of leaves is not maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as there exist a separate legislation under the name of "Payment of Gratuity Act,1965" and EPF and MP Act,1952 and hence, the present claim of the workman is strictly liable to be dismissed being not maintainable .
3.1 In reply on merits, it is stated that the workman worked with the managements in first spell from 25.10.1990 to 23.01.2009 and collected his full and final dues in cash and thereafter, he approached the the managements vide a letter dated 26.03.2010 on the basis of which, he worked from 01.04.2010 till 12.08.2021 and his last drawn salary was Rs.18,000/- per month.
LCA No. 1448/21 Page 5 of 28REJOINDER
4. No rejoinder was filed by the workman.
ISSUES
5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 05.07.2022:-
i) Whether the workman is entitled to amount of Rs.15 lacs against service benefits for about 31 years with OP No. 1 i.e. PF, gratuity, pay for public holidays, casual leave, sick leave, privilege leave, annual leave and earned leave etc. against the opposite parties jointly and severally as prayed for?OPW
ii) Whether the applicant/workman is entitled to interest, if yes, then for what period and at what rate?OPW
iii) Relief.
5.1 After the framing of issues, both the parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence to prove their respective contentions/pleas.
WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
6. The workman appeared in the witness box as the sole LCA No. 1448/21 Page 6 of 28 witness and tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex. WW1/A bearing his signatures at point A & B and has relied upon the following documents which are as under:-
i) Copy of Aadhar card is Ex WW1/1. (OSR)
ii) Copy Declaration Form by employer for ESIC with photograph of family members of the workman is Ex WW1/2 (colly) (OSR)
iii) Copy of temporary ESIC certificate and ESIC identity card are Ex WW1/3 (colly) (OSR)
iv) Copy of resignation letter exhibited is Mark A.
v) Office copy of legal notice is Ex WW1/5.
vi) Original postal receipt of speed post dated 28.8.2021 five in number are Ex WW1/6 (colly).
vii) Original courier receipts dated 28.08.2012 five in number are Ex WW1/7 (colly).
viii) Computer generated tracking report of delivery of speed post as well as courier exhibited is Mark B.
ix) Reply dated 30.09.2021 is Ex WW1/9.
x) Copy of attendance register of OP No. 1 from January 2009 to March 2010, 15 pages is Mark C. 6.1 The workman was cross examined by the Ld. AR for managements which is reproduced as under:-LCA No. 1448/21 Page 7 of 28
"XXXXX By Sh. Abhishek Shukla, Ld. AR for the Management.
I am only conversant with Hindi language. Apart from the present application, I have never filed any claim, application, dispute etc. against the management in any court. I was the main employee in the management and I was heading coating machine, platting machine, cutter, slatting machine. Around three employees were working under me. Those three employees were working under my control and supervision and I used to issue directions to them. It is wrong to suggest that I have been extended ESI facility since the date of my joining. It is correct that I have been working for M/s Naveen Filters Pvt Ltd. since 01.04.2010. I am not aware about the calculation of Rs. Fifteen Lakhs which I claimed in the present application filed before this Hon'ble Court. Vol. I have claimed this amount against my service period of 31 years, PF, gratuity, leaves etc. I am not aware as to what amount is due against the head - 'gratuity'. I am not aware as to what amount is due against the head - 'PF'. I am not aware as to what amount is due against the head - 'leaves'. The management used to give weekly off on Sunday.
At this stage the witness is confronted with settlement receipt dated 23.01.2009 and he admits his signatures thereupon at point A and B hence the copy of same is exhibited as WW-1/XM1.
At this stage the witness is confronted with letter dated 26.03.2010 and the witness deny the signatures thereupon hence the same is marked as Mark -A. At this stage the witness is confronted with voucher dated 23.01.2009 and he admits his signatures thereupon at point A hence the copy of same is exhibited as WW-1/XM2.LCA No. 1448/21 Page 8 of 28
I have neither filed any application before the controlling authority under payment of gratuity act nor filed any application before the EPFO. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed false or fabricated documents in support of my affidavit. I have not approached the management to collect Rs.1,37,066/- after the receipt of Ex-WW-1/9. Vol. The management has not calculated my dues in correct and legal manner.
It is wrong to suggest that I have filed false application against the management or the same is not maintainable."
6.2 Thereafter, the workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 28.11.2023 on the statement of workman and the matter was posted for management's evidence.
MANAGEMENTS' EVIDENCE
7. No evidence was led on behalf of the managements as on 02.02.2024, it was stated by Ld. AR for the managements that he does not intend to lead any evidence and hence, ME was closed and matter was posted for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE WORKMAN:-
8. Ld. AR for the workman states that the workman worked for 31 years with the managements and is entitled to the relief as prayed for and in this regard, has relied upon the LCA No. 1448/21 Page 9 of 28 documents as stated during his examination in chief as WW1.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENTS:-
9. AR for the managements has argued that the jurisdiction of this court is disputed in view of the limited scope of Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in view of the cross examination of the workman himself, he is not entitled to the amount that he has claimed. It is further argued that the workman has not been able to show as to how he had a pre-existing right to the amount that he has claimed by way of the present application.
10. Entire material on record was carefully perused and the documents filed by the workman were taken into consideration.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS:-
11. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the workman is entitled to amount of Rs.15 lacs against service benefits for about 31 years with OP No. 1 i.e. PF, gratuity, pay for public holidays, casual leave, sick leave, privilege leave, annual leave and earned leave etc. against the opposite parties jointly and severally as prayed for? OPW LCA No. 1448/21 Page 10 of 28 ISSUE NO.2:- Whether the applicant/workman is entitled to interest, if yes, then for what period and at what rate? OPW 11.1 Both issues will be taken up together. The onus to prove both these issues with regard to the entitlement as per issue no.1 and interest, if any, as per issue no.2 was placed upon the workman.
11.2 It is pertinent to mention here first that the existence of the employer-employee relationship has been admitted by the managements in the written statement albeit w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and till 12.08.2021.
11.3 Per contra, the workman claims continuous employment w.e.f 25.10.1990 till 28.08.2021. The workman claims that he worked continuously for 31 years to the full satisfaction of the managements. Whereas, the managements alleges that the workman took his full and final settlement in the year 2009 amounting to Rs.43,439/- and thereafter, again sought employment vide a letter dated 26.03.2010 and was re-employed by the managements on 01.04.2010. Since the workman did not file any LCA No. 1448/21 Page 11 of 28 rejoinder, there has been no rebuttal to the submissions made by the managements with regard to the employment of the workman w.e.f. 01.04.2010 to 12.08.2021.
11.4 In this regard, it is necessary to also see the cross examination of the workman conducted on 28.11.2023 by the Ld. AR for the managements wherein he admitted that "It is correct that I have been working for M/s Naveen Filters Pvt. Ltd. since 01.04.2010." In fact, in this regard, the workman has also admitted to his signatures at points A and B on the settlement receipt dated 23.01.2009 which has been exhibited as Ex. WW1/XM1. He further admitted to his signatures on the voucher dated 23.01.2009 at point A which has been exhibited as Ex. WW1/XM2. Thus, by virtue of the admissions of the workman with regard to his date of employment to be 01.04.2010 and with regard to his signatures on Ex. WW1/XM1 and Ex. WW1/XM2, it stands admitted/proved that the workman worked with the management we.f. 01.04.2010 till
12.08.2021 and not w.e.f. 1990 as alleged by the workman.
11.5 The workman states that he is entitled to Rs.15,00,000/- as prayed for his service period of 31 years against PF, gratuity etc. In this regard, it was argued by the Ld. AR for the LCA No. 1448/21 Page 12 of 28 managements that the workman has no pre-existing right as is required under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, he is not entitled to claim the amount as stated by him. In this regard, the managements have relied upon three judgments which are as under:-
i) Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and Ors., MANU/SC/0532/1995
ii) Tara and Ors. vs. Director, Social Welfare and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 9523-9736 of 1996, decided on 18.03.1997, MANU/SC/1333/1998 and
iii) State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Brijpal Singh, Civil Appeal No.5910 of 2005, decided on 27.09.2005, MANU/SC/2466/2005 11.6 Before analyzing whether the workman is entitled to his claim as per the prayer clause, it is necessary to see whether this court has the power under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to determine the existence of entitlement or the basis of the claim of the workman. Since there is no prior adjudication or recognition of the same by the employer.
11.7 The legal position regarding scope of jurisdiction of labour Court in proceedings U/s 33 C(2) of ID Act is no longer res-
LCA No. 1448/21 Page 13 of 28integra, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar, (1968) 1 SCR 140: AIR 1968 SC 218; Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1974) 4 SCC 696; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak & Anr (1995) 1 SCC 235 and in Fabril Gasosa v. Labour Commissioner AIR 1997 SC 954.
11.8 In Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar, (1968) 1 SCR 140:AIR 1968 SC 218, Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the earlier case laws on the subject has summed upon the legal position qua scope of proceedings under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as under:
"3. The contention as to jurisdiction of the Labour Court depends on the true construction of Section 33-C(2) as it stood in 1962 when these applications were filed and before its amendment by Act 36 of 1964. Section 33-C(2) has so far been the subject-matter of decision by this Court in three cases viz. Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Kharbanda [(1962) Supp 2 SCR 977] , Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan [(1964) 3 SCR 140] , and Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva [(1964) 3 SCR 709] .LCA No. 1448/21 Page 14 of 28
The following propositions on the question as to the scope of Section 33-C(2) are deducible from these three decisions:
(1) The legislative history indicates that the legislature, after providing broadly for the investigation and settlement of disputes on the basis of collective bargaining, recognised the need of individual workmen of a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights and therefore inserted Section 33-A in 1950 and Section 33-C in 1956. These two sections illustrate cases in which individual workmen can enforce their rights without having to take recourse to Section 10(1) and without having to depend on their union to espouse their case.
(2) In view of this history two considerations are relevant while construing the scope of Section 33-C. Where industrial disputes arise between workmen acting collectively and their employers such disputes must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Act, as for instance under Section 10(1). But having regard to the legislative policy to provide a speedy remedy to individual workmen for enforcing their existing rights it would not be reasonable to exclude their existing rights sought to be implemented by individual workmen.
Therefore though in determining the scope of Section 33- C care should be taken not to exclude cases which legitimately fall within its purview, cases which fall, for LCA No. 1448/21 Page 15 of 28 instance under Section 10(1), cannot be brought under Section 33-C;
(3) Section 33-C which is in terms similar to those in Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 is a provision in the nature of an executing provision;
(4) Section 33-C(1) applies to cases where money is due to a workman under an award or settlement or under Chapter VA of the Act already calculated and ascertained and therefore there is no dispute about its computation. But sub-section 2 applies both to non-monetary as well as monetary benefits. In the case of monetary benefit it applies where such benefit though due is not calculated and there is a dispute about its calculation; (5) Section 33-C(2) takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. It is open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workmen's right rests.
(6) The fact that the words of limitation used in Section 20(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 are omitted in Section 33-C(2) shows that the scope of Section 33-C(2) is wider than that of Section 33-C(1). Therefore, whereas sub-section 1 is confined to LCA No. 1448/21 Page 16 of 28 claims arising under an award or settlement or Chapter VA, claims which can be entertained under sub-section are not so confined to those under an award, settlement or Chapter VA.
(7) Though the court did not indicate which cases other than those under sub-section 1 would fall under sub- section 2, it pointed out illustrative cases which would not fall under sub-section 2 viz. cases which would appropriately be adjudicated under Section 10(1) or claims which have already been the subject-matter of settlement to which Sections 18 and 19 would apply. (8) Since proceedings under Section 33-C(2) are analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by a workman is in such cases in the position of an executing court, the Labour Court like the executing court in execution proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, is competent under Section 33-C(2) to interpret the award or settlement where the benefit is claimed under such award or settlement and it would be open to it to consider the plea of nullity where the award is made without jurisdiction.
It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer. Since LCA No. 1448/21 Page 17 of 28 the scope of sub-section 2 is wider than that of sub- section 1 and the sub-section is not confined to cases arising under an award, settlement or under the, provisions of Chapter VA. There is no reason to hold that a benefit provided by a statute or a Scheme made thereunder, without there being anything contrary under such statute or Section 33-C(2), cannot fall within sub- section 2. Consequently, the benefit provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remains to be computed must fall under sub-section 2 and the Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in respect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial workman and his employer. The contention that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because the claim arose under the said scheme or because the benefit was monetary or because it involved any substantial question between the Company and the workmen must, in view of the said decisions, fail." (Emphasis mine) 11.9 Further, in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1974) 4 SCC 696, Hon'ble Supreme Court has delineated the scope of proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the following words:
LCA No. 1448/21 Page 18 of 28"12. It is now well-settled that a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being previously adjudged, or, otherwise, duly provided for. In Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar [AIR 1968 SC 218 : (1968) 1 SCR 140 : 1968 (1) Lab LJ 6] it was reiterated that proceedings under Section 33-C(2) are analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by workmen is in such cases in the position of an executing court. It was also reiterated that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer.
13. In a suit, a claim for relief made by the plaintiff against the defendant involves an investigation directed to the determination of (i) the plaintiff's right to relief; (ii) LCA No. 1448/21 Page 19 of 28 the corresponding liability of the defendant, including, whether the defendant is, at all, liable or not; and (iii) the extent of the defendant's liability, if any. The working out of such liability with a view to give relief is generally regarded as the function of an execution proceeding. Determination No. (iii) referred to above, that is to say, the extent of the defendant's liability may sometimes be left over for determination in execution proceedings. But that is not the case with the determinations under heads
(i) and (ii). They are normally regarded as the functions of a suit and not an execution proceeding. Since a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding it should follow that an investigation of the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) above is, normally, outside its scope; It is true that in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2), as in an execution proceeding, it may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom the claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. But that is merely 'incidental'. To call determinations (i) and (ii) 'Incidental' to an execution proceeding would be a perversion, because execution proceedings in which the extent of liability is worked out are just consequential upon the determinations (i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief. Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) that Court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself LCA No. 1448/21 Page 20 of 28 the functions -- say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as "Incidental" to its main business of computation. In such cases determinations (i) and (ii) are not "Incidental" to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. It was, therefore, held in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal [1968 (1) Lab LJ 589 : (1967-68) 3 FJR 462 : (1968) 38 Com Cas 400] that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under Section 33-C(2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately the subject-matter of an Industrial Dispute which requires a reference under Section 10 of the Act." (Emphasis mine) 11.10 Relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak & Anr (1995) 1 SCC 235 in this regard are as under:
"12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier LCA No. 1448/21 Page 21 of 28 adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution." (Emphasis mine) 11.11 Similarly, in Fabril Gasosa v. Labour Commissioner (1997) 3SCC 150, following pertinent observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"19. Section 33-C is in the nature of execution proceedings designed to recover the dues to the workmen. Vide Sections 33-C(1) and (2), the legislature has provided a speedy remedy to the workmen to have the benefits of a settlement or award which are due to LCA No. 1448/21 Page 22 of 28 them and are capable of being computed in terms of money, be recovered through the proceedings under those sub-sections. The distinction between sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 33-C lies mainly in the procedural aspect and not with any substantive rights of workmen as conferred by these two sub-sections. Sub-
section (1) comes into play when on the application of a workman himself or any other person assigned by him in writing in this behalf or his assignee or heirs in case of his death, the appropriate Government is satisfied that the amounts so claimed are due and payable to that workman. On that satisfaction being arrived at, the Government can initiate action under this sub-section for recovery of the amount provided the amount is a determined one and requires no "adjudication". The appropriate Government does not have the power to determine the amount due to any workman under sub- section (1) and that determination can only be done by the labour Court under sub-section (2) or in a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act. Even after the determination is made by the labour Court under sub- section (2) the amount so determined by the labour Court, can be recovered through the summary and speedy procedure provided by sub-section (1). Sub- section (1) does not control or affect the ambit and operation of sub-section (2) which is wider in scope than sub-section (1). Besides the rights conferred under Section 33-C(2) exist in addition to any other mode of LCA No. 1448/21 Page 23 of 28 recovery which the workman has under the law. An analysis of the scheme of Sections 33-C(1) and 33-C(2) shows that the difference between the two sub-sections is quite obvious. While the former sub-section deals with cases where money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or V-B, sub-section (2) deals with cases where a workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. Thus, where the amount due to the workmen, flowing from the obligations under a settlement, is predetermined and ascertained or can be arrived at by any arithmetical calculation or simpliciter verification and the only inquiry that is required to be made is whether it is due to the workmen or not, recourse to the summary proceedings under Section 33-C(1) of the Act is not only appropriate but also desirable to prevent harassment to the workmen. Sub-section (1) of Section 33-C entitles the workmen to apply to the appropriate Government for issuance of a certificate of recovery for any money due to them under an award or a settlement or under the provisions of Chapter V-A and the Government, if satisfied, that a specific sum is due to the workmen, is obliged to issue a certificate for the recovery of the amount due. After the requisite certificate is issued by the Government to the Collector, the Collector is under a statutory duty to recover the amounts due under the LCA No. 1448/21 Page 24 of 28 certificate issued to him. The procedure is aimed at providing a speedy, cheap and summary manner of recovery of the amount due, which the employer has wrongfully withheld. It, therefore, follows that where money due is on the basis of some amount predetermined like the VDA, the rate of which stands determined in terms of the settlement, an award or under Chapter V-A or V-B, and the period for which the arrears are claimed is also known, the case would be covered by sub-section (1) as only a calculation of the amount is required to be made." (Emphasis mine) 11.12 From the aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the proceedings under Section 33 C(2) of ID Act are in the nature of execution proceedings designed to recover the dues of the workman. Further, although the scope of the proceedings U/s 33 C(2) of ID Act is wider than the scope of jurisdiction of the appropriate Government U/s 33 C(1) of ID Act, however, even u/s 33(C)(2) of the Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the entitlement of the workman to the benefit/dues of which the computation is sought. It is only in the case where the entitlement is earlier adjudicated/pre-determined or recognized by the employer and for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof, some ambiguity requires interpretation that LCA No. 1448/21 Page 25 of 28 the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.
11.13 A perusal of the aforesaid propositions of law to the facts of the case clearly indicates that the managements have denied the existence of a pre-existing claim of the workman. Even the workman in his own admission during cross examination has stated that he is not aware as to what amount is due against the head gratuity, against the head PF or against the head leaves. The workman has not been able to show by way of any document that he had a pre-existing right to any sum of money and has not been able to show as to how the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- falls within the scope of Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it being neither an existing one and not being adjudicated upon or provided for by any court of law.
11.14 It is further noted that the managements have admitted to the pending dues of the applicant which were calculated post his resignation which have been summed up in para no.7 of the reply on merits of the written statement/reply as follows:-
LCA No. 1448/21 Page 26 of 28 Date of Appointment : 01.04.2010
Date of Resignation : 31.07.2021
Last drawn salary : Rs.18,000/- p.m.
Gratuity : Rs.1,14,231/-
Bonus:2020-21 : Rs.10,120/-
Bonus:2021-22 : Rs.5515/-
Aug.21 [12 days salary] : Rs.7200/-
Total : Rs.1,37,066/-
The said sum totals to Rs.1,37,066/-.
11.15 The workman during his cross examination has
admitted that he did not collect the said dues from the managements. Since he was disputing the calculation of the said amount, it was necessary for the workman to show as to how the calculation of Rs.15,00,000/- has been arrived at by him for assisting the court in deciding the amount to which he is entitled. The workman has not been able to show as to how the claim put forward by him by way of the present application is a pre-existing right or a right incidental to the scope of Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In absence of any evidence in support of the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- made by the workman, both these issues are decided against the workman and in favour of the managements.
LCA No. 1448/21 Page 27 of 28RELIEF:-
12. However, since an amount of Rs.1,37,066/- has been admitted by the managements to be due towards the workman, the present application of the workman under section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is partly allowed. The management is directed to pay the said amount of Rs.1,37,066/- to the workman alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of present application till the date of realization.
13. With these observations, the claim as filed by the workman u/s 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is disposed off. Judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Pronounced in open court Digitally signed by
CHETNA CHETNA SINGH
on 20.03.2026 SINGH Date: 2026.05.15
17:02:46 +0530
(CHETNA SINGH)
PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-06
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT
NEW DELHI.
LCA No. 1448/21 Page 28 of 28