Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohammd Idrish Khan on 9 December, 2016
1 W. P. No. 8598/ 2016
(State of M.P. & Others Vs. Mohd. Idrish Khan)
09.12.2016
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners/ State.
This writ petition has been filed by the State of M.P.- the employer, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, in COC102/F/ID Act/2015, whereby the Labour Court on the basis of the date of permanent classification of the applicant, has directed for payment of the difference of wages from 29.03.2005 to 31.08.2015.
The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that such relief could not have been granted under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, without adjudication of the entitlement of the applicant to receive money.
It is also submitted that adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Consequently, relief has been sought for quashing the impugned order.
Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3333/2009(S) [Shri Gaurav Punj & Another Vs. Bhagwat Lal Rajput] decided on 09.05.2012, has while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Another Vs. Brijpal Singh as reported in 2005(8) SCC 58, has held that a right to money which is sought to be calculated or 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 2 W. P. No. 8598/ 2016 (State of M.P. & Others Vs. Mohd. Idrish Khan) between the industrial workmen and his employer. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that Labour Court can exercise the power of jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, if a workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the workman was classified as permanent vide order dated 29.03.2005, but was paid on daily wages. In fact, in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ramprakash as reported in 1989 JLJ 36, it has been held that whether an employee comes by way of normal recruitment process or through the process of classification, the fact remains that both i.e. the normally recruited employee and classified employee, work on the same post and perform the same duties, therefore, they are entitled to the same benefits. Once this is already a settled position and also the fact that judgment in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ramprakash (Supra), it has been held to be judgment in rem, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regular pay-scale will come under the category of benefit being capable of being computed in terms of money, therefore, the order of Labour Court passed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, cannot be faulted on the ground that there was no adjudication prior to filing of the application by the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge @PK