Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 156 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Bombay Chemical Industries vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 4 February, 2022

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Krishna ... vs Mulugu Prabrahma Chari, Krishna ... on 23 January, 2024

The argument of the learned counsel for writ petitioner that reference was required for determination of such claims and an application under Section 33-C(2) is not maintainable is sought to be supported by the learned counsel based on the ratio in M/s Bombay Chemicals Industries V. Depot Labour Commissioner. That was a case where an employee filed application under section 33-C(2) demanding the difference of wages. The prime contention of the employer in resisting the said application was that the applicant was not its employee and that there was no relationship of employee and 10 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.24248 of 2005 employer between them. The Learned Labour Court allowed the application directing the employer to pay difference of wages. It was in that context when the matter was brought before their Lordships by way of an appeal, their Lordships held that in an application under section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947, the labour court had no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workman. Learned Labour court can only interpret the award on which the claim is based. The power of Labour court under Section 33-C(2) is like that of an executing court. Without prior adjudication as to whether there was employer-employee relationship or not, the disputed claim of arrears of wages could not be entertained by the Labour court under Section 33-C(2) until the employer - employee relationship is established on a reference, there could be no pre-existing right based on which a claim for benefit under Section 33-C(2) could be made. Finally, their Lordships relegated the parties to take steps for initiation of appropriate proceeding by way of a reference to the Labour court to adjudicate about the legal relationship between the parties. This ruling cited by the learned counsel for writ petitioner is in tune with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 11 Dr. VRKS, J W.P.No.24248 of 2005 the earlier referred judgment. In the case at hand, the relationship between the parties is never at stake and dispute. It is only entitlement of a benefit based on the award which was agitated under Section 33-C(2). Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for writ petitioner about absence of jurisdiction for the Labour court is incorrect. Hence point is answered against the writ petitioners.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chairman Shri/Manager Shri, Pragati ... vs Ashvinbhai Chhotabhai Patel on 28 January, 2025

9. The contention raised by the present petitioner that there is disputed fact that whether the respondent would be entitled on completion of three years or on completion of two years appears to be unfounded as on referring the settlement, more particularly condition no.2d wherein it is clearly stated that on completion of two years the stagnation requirement is required to be paid to the employees. During the cross examination of the witness of petitioner it was admitted that stagnant increment was paid in July 2000, second increment paid in July 2003, in July 2006 was the third increment and Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:32:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12916/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025 undefined fourth increment was paid in July 2009. Therefore, it appears that petitioner by interpreting the settlement in convenient manner has paid stagnant increment on completion of three years instead of completion of two years. Reliance which was placed by the learned advocate Mr.Mankad on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner (supra) wherein also the Apex Court has held that labour court by exercising the power under section 33(C)(2) can interpret the award for settlement for which the claim is made.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balasaheb Bajirao Raut And Another vs M/S Sumit Services Through Its Partner ... on 17 December, 2025

In the case of Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the jurisdiction of labour Court in the cases of recovery of money under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that without prior adjudication or recognition of disputed claim of workmen, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by workmen is not maintainable. It is held that benefits sought to be enforced must be effective pre-existing benefits or one flowing from pre-existing right. In the said case, there was no prior 1 (2022) 5 SCC 629 ( 10 ) WP-691-1824-2020 adjudication on entitlement to receive money. The claim of the workman therein that he was employed as a salesman by appellant was seriously disputed. In that case, the labour Court had allowed the application. It was held that the Labour Court ought to have relegated the parties to initiate appropriate proceedings and get the right crystalized. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Santosh Kumar Sarangi vs The Presiding Officer on 28 June, 2022

"7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, when there was no prior adjudication on the issue whether respondent No.2 herein was in employment as a salesman as claimed by respondent No.2 herein and there was a serious dispute raised that respondent No.2 was never in employment as a salesman and the documents relied upon by respondent No.2 were seriously disputed by the appellant and it was the case on behalf of the appellant that those documents are forged and/or false, thereafter the Labour Court Page 3 of 4 // 4 // ought not to have proceeded further with the application under Section 33(C)(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ought to have relegated respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of reference and get his right crystalized and/or adjudicate upon. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court has not appreciated the aforesaid facts and has confirmed the same without adverting to the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act."
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R K Pattanaik - Full Document

Gujarat Pollution Control Board vs Rasiklal Polabhai Dhandhukia on 8 June, 2023

"Labour Court, Rajkot is directed to decide the application filed by the respondent under section 33-C (2) of the Act, in relation to maintainability or otherwise by considering the written statement filed by the petitioners and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and another (Supra) and in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another (Supra), shall be considered to decide such application. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case."
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sumit Services vs Balasaheb Bajirao Raut And Another on 17 December, 2025

In the case of Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the jurisdiction of labour Court in the cases of recovery of money under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that without prior adjudication or recognition of disputed claim of workmen, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by workmen is not maintainable. It is held that benefits sought to be enforced must be effective pre-existing benefits or one flowing from pre-existing right. In the said case, there was no prior 1 (2022) 5 SCC 629 ( 10 ) WP-691-1824-2020 adjudication on entitlement to receive money. The claim of the workman therein that he was employed as a salesman by appellant was seriously disputed. In that case, the labour Court had allowed the application. It was held that the Labour Court ought to have relegated the parties to initiate appropriate proceedings and get the right crystalized. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balasaheb Bajirao Raut And Another vs Om Telecom Services Through Ashatai ... on 17 December, 2025

In the case of Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the jurisdiction of labour Court in the cases of recovery of money under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that without prior adjudication or recognition of disputed claim of workmen, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by workmen is not maintainable. It is held that benefits sought to be enforced must be effective pre-existing benefits or one flowing from pre-existing right. In the said case, there was no prior 1 (2022) 5 SCC 629 ( 10 ) WP-691-1824-2020 adjudication on entitlement to receive money. The claim of the workman therein that he was employed as a salesman by appellant was seriously disputed. In that case, the labour Court had allowed the application. It was held that the Labour Court ought to have relegated the parties to initiate appropriate proceedings and get the right crystalized. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next