Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Managing Director vs Smt. Manohari Devi on 6 August, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11690/2019
Managing Director, Harsor Farmers Service Cooperative Society
Limited, Harsor, Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Manohari Devi W/o Late Shri Chhitar Mal Sen, Resident Of
Post Khachariyawas, District Sikar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 06/08/2019 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 17.07.2019 (Annex.-7) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby one Assistant Accounts Officer ('AAO') has been appointed as Commissioner for calculation of amount and its examination.
It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the award dated 17.01.2017 was passed by the Labour Court, whereby the workman was ordered to be reinstated back in service with 25% back wages from the date of reference i.e 22.09.2009. After award was passed, the workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') for recovery of the back wages awarded alongwith calculation-sheets as Schedule-A, Schedule-B and Schedule-C. The petitioner filed reply to the said application and denied the averments made in the application and contended that the calculations made were not correct. The respondent-workman filed (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:11:39 AM) (2 of 5) [CW-11690/2019] his affidavit and was cross-examined by the petitioner. Affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has also been filed and the deponent was cross-examined. The matter was then posted for final arguments on 17.07.2019.
On 17.07.2019, the Labour Court observed that the dispute also pertains to the calculation, the claim made by the petitioner has been disputed by the employer and in those circumstances what would be the correct calculation and relying on provisions of Section 33-C(3) of the Act, ordered for appointment of AAO as Commissioner and he was directed to produce the calculation alongwith difference statement before the Court.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the parties had led the evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments, the Labour Court could not have appointed Commissioner for collecting evidence and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Further submissions were made that the appointment of AAO for the purpose is contrary to Rule 63 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 ('Rules of 1957') as the said Rule envisages appointment of a person with experience in the particular industry, trade or business or a person with experience as a judge of civil court etc., however, the AAO does not fall in any of the said description and, therefore, the appointment is bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Reliance was placed on judgment in Pradeep Kumawat v. Manager, D.B. Corp. Ltd.: (2019) 3 WLN 1 (Raj.). (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:11:39 AM)
(3 of 5) [CW-11690/2019] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the Labour Court while passing the award dated 17.01.2017, ordered payment of 25% of the back wages, which amount was not paid by the petitioner to the workman and, therefore, application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was filed alongwith various schedules indicating the amount due in terms of the award. Though the parties led evidence in support of the claim/denial of the claim, the Labour Court while hearing the arguments, found that the calculations produced by the workman were required to be examined by a AAO for finding out the correctness of the same and, therefore, passed the order impugned.
Provisions relevant in this regard reads as under:-
"33C. Recovery of money due from an employers.- (1) ..................
(2) ..................
(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."
Provisions of Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958'), which are applicable and pari materia with Rule 63 of the Rules of 1957, reads as under:-
"63. Appointment of Commissioner.-Where it is necessary to appoint a Commissioner under sub-section (3) of section 33-C of the Act, the Labour Court may appoint a person with experience in the particular industry, trade or business involved in the industrial dispute or a person with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court, or as a stipendiary Magistrate or as a Registrar or Secretary of a Labour Court or Tribunal constituted under the Act or of the Labour (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:11:39 AM) (4 of 5) [CW-11690/2019] Appellate Triubnal constituted under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950."
A perusal of the provisions of Section 33-C(3) reveals that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to appoint a Commissioner for computing of the money value of a benefit based on whose report and other circumstances, the Labour Court can determine the amount.
Rule 63 of the Rules of 1958 provides that the Labour Court may appoint a person with experience in the particular industry, trade or business involved in the industrial dispute or a person with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or other authorities as indicated in the Rules.
The provision of appointing a person with experience in the particular industry, trade or business involved in the industrial dispute, cannot be read in a narrow sense so as to confine it to a person related to the employer industry, trade or business. The provision is to appoint with experience in relation to the dispute involved before the Labour Court and as admittedly in the present case, the dispute involves the calculation of the benefits, which the workman under the award is entitled, the AAO is the best person to deal with the said aspect and render his assistance in this regard and, therefore, the appointment by the Labour Court, cannot be faulted.
So far as the judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumawat (supra) is concerned, the facts of the said case were totally different, inasmuch as, in the said case, after the evidence was closed by the parties on the merits of the dispute and the matter was fixed for final hearing, further opportunity was granted to the (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:11:39 AM) (5 of 5) [CW-11690/2019] employer to file documents, whereas in the present case neither any new material is sought to be produced nor the party has sought appointment of Commissioner, the Labour Court suo moto exercised powers under provisions of Section 33-C(3), which is essentially meant for the assistance of the Court and, therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case.
In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Labour Court, cannot be faulted. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 180-PKS/-
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:11:39 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)