Karnataka High Court
National Textile Corporation (Apkk And ... vs The Commissioner Of Labour, Government ... on 22 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: ILR2005KAR269, 2005(2)KARLJ155, (2005)IILLJ978KANT, 2005 LAB. I. C. 1658, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 776, (2005) 7 SERVLR 446, (2005) 2 KANT LJ 155, (2005) 3 SCT 120, (2005) 1 KCCR 431, (2005) 104 FACLR 1024, (2005) 2 LABLJ 978, (2005) 2 CURLR 185
JUDGMENT S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The Management of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M)Limited (for short "the Management") being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2001 in Writ Petition Nos. 23665 of 2000 c/w 534 of 1999, has preferred these two writ appeals.
2. The workmen made an application before the Commissioner of Labour who is the delegate of the Government of Karnataka which is the 'appropriate Government under-section (1) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") claiming lay-off compensation under the provisions of Sub-sections (8) and (10) of Section 25M r/w Section 25C of the Act. The application was opposed by the Management contending that the workmen were not laid off and, therefore, they are not entitled to the relief claimed in the application. Despite the above plea taken by the Management, the Commissioner proceeded to adjudicate upon the merits of the matter and granted the relief. That led to the Management preferring the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court who heard the matter, upheld the order of the commissioner passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Act. Hence these writ appeals by the aggrieved Management.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. Although several contentions are raised by the parties as could be seen from their pleadings, there is no necessity for us to refer to or consider the factual controversies that arise for decision-making. We are satisfied that the Commissioner of Labour, the 1st respondent herein, has exceeded his jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Act in allowing the application filed by the workmen. The power granted to the Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Act does not enable him to adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workmen to receive lay -off compensation in the absence of any settlement or award passed under the provisions of Chapter V-A or chapter V-B of the Act. It is not the case of the workmen that they are entitled to layoff by virtue of any award of settlement.
5. Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Act reads;
"33C. Recovery of money due from an employer. (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 or Chapter V-B, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or his heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue".
The legislature in consonance with the laudable objective to provide cheap and speedy remedy to the working class has enacted Section 33C providing a procedure to enable an individual workman to a speedy remedy to enforce his individual right without recourse to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act or without having to wait for the Trade Union to which he belongs to espouse his cause. Section 33C provides both a forum and the procedure for computing both monetary as well as non-monetary benefits in terms of money and further provides machinery for recovery of such claims. Sub-section (1) Section 33C applies to cases where money is due to a workman from an employer under an award or settlement under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B of the Act already calculated and ascertained and, therefore, there is no dispute about its computation. Sub-section (1) is a provision in the nature of execution proceedings and it contemplates that if money is due to a workman under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapters V-A or Chapter V-B of the Act, he is not compelled to take recourse to the ordinary course of execution in a Civil Court but may adopt a summary procedure prescribed by Sub-section (1). The provision of Sub-section (1) enables a workman to make an application to the "appropriate Government" for issue of certificate for any money due to him under an award or a settlement or under the provisions of chapter V-A or chapter V-B of the Act to the Collector for its recovery as arrears of land revenue. If on such application being made under Sub-section (1), the appropriate Government is satisfied that a specific amount is due to the workman, then it will issue a certificate to the Collector for recovery of the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is not essential that the claim which can be brought before the Government or its delegate like the Commissioner under this provision must always be for a predetermined sum. The Government or its delegate may satisfy itself about the exact amount and then take action under this Sub-section (1). It is verification of the claim to money within Sub-section (1) and not determination in terms of money of the value of benefit. In other words, where the amount to be executed is worked out in an award or settlement, or where it may be worked out without any dispute, Sub-section (1) of Section 33C will apply. The satisfaction of the "appropriate Government" or its delegate, which Sub-section (1) speaks of, is the prima facie satisfaction when a claim is made by any workman before it for issuance of a certificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount due. If the appropriate Government or its delegate finds that the amount claimed by the workman is due and there is no such dispute which need any adjudication by the Labour court under Sub-section (2) of Section 33C and the claim is bonafide, then, Government or its delegate shall issue a certificate for the amount due to the collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrears of land revenue. But, the appropriate Government or its delegate in the garb of the power conferred under Sub-section (1) cannot undertake adjudication of disputed claims. Sub-section (1) of Section 33 is not meant to establish a right; rather, it is meant to enforce an established right. In that view of the matter, we hold that, the Commissioner of Labour has exceeded his jurisdiction in granting the certificate sought by the workmen when their claim to lay-off compensation is seriously disputed by the Management. The entitlement of the workmen to lay-off compensation cannot be decided in an application filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Act.
5. In conclusion, with respect, we cannot sustain the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in these appeals. In the result, we allow the writ appeals and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow Writ Petition Nos. 23665 of 2001 and 534 of 1999 and quash the impugned order of the Commissioner of Labour. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. We, however, direct that this order shall not come in the way of the workmen working out their legal remedies before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be.