Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kewal vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 17 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)IILLJ605P&H, (1997)115PLR764
Author: T.H.B. Chalapathi
Bench: T.H.B. Chalapathi
JUDGMENT T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, Faridabad in Application No. 140 of 1980 dated December 17, 1981.
2. The petitioner filed an application for computation of his back wages, bonus and leave wages from December 1, 1973 to August 31, 1980 amounting to Rs.21,270/-. The petitioner was working with the 2nd respondent company. His services were terminated on December 1, 1973, Thereupon the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad. In Reference No. 120 of 1974 vide order dated April 25, 1978, the Industrial Tribunal held that the termination of services of the petitioner was neither justified nor in order. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service with full back wages. Thereafter the petitioner filed Application No. 140 of 1980 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') claiming back wages, bonus and Leave wages amounting to Rs. 21,270/-from December 1, 1973 to August 31, 1980, the date on which he was reinstated as per the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court, Faridabad, solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to approach the appropriate Forum under Section 33-C(1) of the Act. Therefore the application is not maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.
3. The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is debarred from making application under Section 33-C(2) without following the procedure under Section 33-C(1) of the Act. It is useful to refer to both the provisions :-
"33-C(1) where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to appropriate Government for recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is due it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the collector who shall proceed to recover" as arrears of land revenue.
33-C(2) where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in Sub-section (1)."
4. A reading of the above provisions clearly shows that they are independent of each other. Section 33-C(2) is not dependent on Section 33-C(1). The remedies provided under Section 33-C(1) and 33-C(2) are quite independent. It is no doubt true that the claims arising out of an award or settlement under Chapter V-A and V-B can be dealt with under Sub-section (1) of Sec-tion 33-C. Every claim can be entertained under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C. A reading of both the provisions clearly shows that scope of Section 33-C(2) is wider than that of Section 33-C(1). When the order of termination has been set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back wages, a right has been accrued to the petitioner to get the back wages under the award and the claim of the workman for the monetary benefits is capable of being computed and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for back wages, bonus, and leave salary will fall within Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C. No further adjudication is required in regard to the claims made by the workman. As already stated, the scope of Section 33-C(2) is' wider than that of Section 33-C(1). Therefore, a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is maintainable where an individual workman or workmen claim amount of money due or amount at which the benefit should be computed, but such claim must be based on an existing right. The existing right itself should have vested either under a settlement of an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or V-B or conferred under the provisions of any statute. Once the right is shown to be existing under any of the above, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition and ascertain the money due or the amount at which the benefit is to be computed. The mere denial of such an existing right by the employer does not take away the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain a petition under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C. Section 33-C(1) applies to cases where money is due to a workman under an award or settlement or under Chapter V-A 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. Section 33-C(2) takes within it 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. Just as an executing Court is competent to interpret the decree, so also the Labour Court is competent to construe the settlement, award or a statue under which the right is claimed.
5. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. As the Labour Court failed to determine the amount due to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for remand to the Labour Court to compute the monetary benefit to which the petitioner workman is entitled to.
6. The writ petition, is therefore, allowed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Faridabad, for computation of the amount due to the petitioner workman.
7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Faridabad on March 17, 1997.