Delhi District Court
Gobind Mani vs Kasha Paradox on 6 December, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MONIKA SAROHA
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No. 02,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT13-000983-2011
LCA No. 536/2016
Date of institution 06.05.2011
Date of Award 06.12.2023
Sh. Govind Mani,
S/o Sh. Bishan Dutt, Aged about 56 years,
R/o H. No. 104-C, Dabbas Bhawan, Kishanganj,
New Goshala, Delhi-110070.
Old Address: C/o Sh. Mahender, H. No. 118, New Manglapuri, New
Delhi-30.
Through
Sh. Suresh Chandra, General Secretary, Universal Proutist Labour
Federation (Regd.), F-30/5, Opp. A-92, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-
II, New Delhi-110020.
Name and Mobile Number of A.R. for workman:
Sh. N. Bhushan, Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal & Sh. Suresh Chander, General
Secretary of the Union.
.....Applicant/Workman.
Versus
M/s CASA Paradox Pvt. Ltd.
177, New Mangolpuri, M.B. Road, Sultanpur,
New Delhi-110030.
LCA No. 536/2016
2
Represented by: AR, Sh. Akshat Gupta & Associates, 163/F, W-2,
Western-Avenue, Sainik Farms, Contact No. 9312131210.
...Management.
AWARD
1.Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed by the applicant/claimant against the management.
CASE OF THE WORKMAN
2. According to the applicant/claimant he was an employee of the management and working with the management since 01.07.1993 at the post of 'Karamchari' on the last drawn wages of Rs.9,000/-. The claimant was not being provided his appointment letter, attendance record, over time allowance so he insisted that the management provide him the same. The management got annoyed with these demands and asked the claimant to sign on certain blank papers. The workman signed on such blank papers and thereafter the management terminated his services on 23.04.2011 without assigning any reason.
2.1 According to the claimant, the management did not pay him his dues i.e., the arrears of earned wages, bonus, leave encashment, double overtime and arrears of minimum wages etc. LCA No. 536/2016 3 Hence this application before this court by the claimant praying that the management be directed to pay him the following amount-:
a) Rs. 6,900/- (Rupees Six Thousand Nine Hundred only) for 23 days of earned wages.
b) Rs. 18,36,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Thirty Six thousand only) as overtime of 4 hours everyday for the period of 17 years.
c) Rs. 78,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight thousand only) as leave encashment.
d) Rs. 1,53,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Three Thousand only) as bonus.
In total the workman has demanded Rs. 20,73,900/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Nine Hundred only) alongwith interest from the management in this application.
2.2 On the basis of the averments in the claim, notice was issued to the management. The AR for the management appeared and filed written statement.
REPLY OF THE MANAGEMENT
3. In it's reply the management took the stand that no 'employer-employee' relationship existed between the claimant and it. On this ground the management challenged the maintainability of this petition saying that as there is no relationship between it and the LCA No. 536/2016 4 claimant this application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking computation of amount towards earned wages, bonus, leave wages, overtime and arrears of minimum wages is not maintainable.
ISSUES FRAMED
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor on 06.04.2015.
i) Whether the petition filed u/s 33-C(2) of I.D. Act is maintainable for want of relationship between the claimant and the management? OPW
ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to payment of a sum of Rs. 20,73,900/- from the management? OPW
iii) Relief.
After the issues were framed, the matter was listed for workman's evidence.
WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
5. The workman appeared in the witness box as the sole witness and filed his evidence by way of affidavit. In this affidavit, the averments of the claim, as mentioned above were reiterated. The workman relied upon the following documents:-
i) Ex. WW1/1 - Demand notice dated 20.04.2011 sent to the management.LCA No. 536/2016 5
ii) Ex. WW1/2 - Courier receipt of demand notice.
iii) Ex. WW1/3 (OSR) - Identity card of the workman.
5.1 The claimant was cross-examined at length by the AR of the management. No other witness was examined and upon request, the evidence of the claimant was closed and the matter was then listed for management evidence.
MANAGEMENT'S EVIDENCE
6. Sh. Rajendra Verma appeared in the witness box as the sole witness of the management. He deposed that he was working as 'Manager Administration' with the management and was well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. He relied on the following documents in his evidence:-
i) Ex. MW1/1 (OSR) - Board Resolution (CASA PARADOX 1993) in his favour.
ii) Ex. MW1/2 (OSR) - Certificate of Incorporation of the management bearing No. 55-62670.
6.1 This witness was cross examined at length by AR for the workman. No other witness was examined by the management, so the evidence of the management was closed and the matter was then listed for final arguments.
LCA No. 536/2016 6ARGUMENTS
7. The AR of the workman and the AR of the management advanced lengthy arguments on 22.08.2023 which were heard by this court. All the relevant documents on record were considered.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
8. I have carefully gone through the record. Issue wise findings on the basis of the material on record are as recorded under:-
ISSUE No.1:-
Whether the petition filed u/s 33-C(2) of I.D. Act is maintainable for want of relationship between the claimant and the management? OPW 8.1 The maintainability of the present application u/s. 33 C(2) of the Act has been challenged by the management in the written statement itself. It has been submitted on behalf of the management that the claimant has never been its employee and no 'employer-
employee' relationship ever existed between the claimant and the management and as such until and unless this disputed question of relationship is adjudicated in a separate claim under s. 2A or s. 10 (4) (A) of the ID Act and a finding is returned in such proceedings, no LCA No. 536/2016 7 claim of money/benefit is maintainable by the claimant against management under proceedings under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
8.2 For reasons discussed in detail below, this court finds merit in this argument raised by the Ld. AR for the management.
Section 33C(2) is reproduced below for proper appreciation of the applicable law:-
"Section 33C : Recovery of Money Due from an Employer -
(1) x x x (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).
(3) x x x (4) x x x (5) x x x"
In Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar & ors., (1968) 1 SCR 140 Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the ambit and scope of section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and made following pertinent observations:-
"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..."LCA No. 536/2016 8
This decision was thereafter followed by Hon'ble Apex Court again in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Workmen (1974) 4 SCC 696. The relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced herein below :-
"12. It is now well-settled that a proceeding under section 33C (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 & ors., it was reiterated that proceedings under 33C (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) 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 LCA No. 536/2016 9 proceeding under section 33C (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 33C (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 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself 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 that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under section 33C (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."
The law pronounced in the above said judgment has since been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in later decisions. In Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak, 1995 SCC (1) 235 the legal principal on the issue was summed up as follows :-
LCA No. 536/2016 10" ..where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being, no earlier 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 33C(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 33C(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 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution."
8.3 Applying the above discussed law to the present facts, this court is of the view that, this application is not maintainable in this court. The claimant has claimed that he worked as an employee of management from July, 1993 continuously till April 2011. On the other hand, the Management claimed that it never had any kind of 'employer-employee' relationship with the claimant and thus had no liability to pay any amount to the claimant. In the witness box also both the parties remained firm on their stand regarding the relationship.
8.4 Thus, from the pleadings and the evidence there is apparent dispute on the issue of relationship between the claimant and the management as well as entitlement of the claimant to receive any LCA No. 536/2016 11 amount from the management. There is nothing on record to suggest that prior to filing of the present application, the claimant has ever raised any Industrial Dispute against the management to get the disputed question of relationship as well as entitlement to the benefits claimed by him adjudicated by the competent authority in appropriate proceedings. The claimant has failed to show any pre-existing right as defined in Section 33 (c) 2 of the I.D. Act, as admittedly there is no earlier adjudication in form of award or settlement or recognition by the employer to the benefits claimed by him. In view of the well settled position of law discussed above, this court doesn't have jurisdiction to first decide the claimant's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under section 33C(2) of the Act. Therefore, it is held that the present application/ petition filed by the claimant u/s 33-C(2) of the ID Act, is not maintainable as the relationship of employer-employee between the parties is not an admitted one in this case. This issue is accordingly decided against the claimant and in favour of the management.
ISSUE No. 2:-
Whether the claimant is entitled to payment of a sum of Rs. 20,73,900/- from the management? OPW LCA No. 536/2016 12 8.5 In view of the findings given in issue no.1 above, the claimant is not found entitled to any relief in this petition.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against the claimant and in favour of the management.
RELIEF
9. In view of the findings given in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the claimant is not entitled to any relief against the management.
10. Considering the findings given in issues above, the application filed by the claimant under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is accordingly dismissed.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court today on 06.12.2023.
MONIKA SAROHA Presiding Officer, Labour Court -2 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
LCA No. 536/2016