Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.70 seconds)The Central Bank Of India Ltd vs P.S. Rajagopalan Etc on 19 April, 1963
In case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda, reported in 1962 (1) LLJ 234 (SC), construing the words "any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money,", has held that where the benefit to which a workman may be entitled has not already been calculated, for example, in an award, which confers on him the benefit sub-sec, (2) would apply for computation of such benefit, if there is a dispute about it. Glossing on this holding, in case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajogopalan, reported in 1963 (2) LLJ 89 (SC), it has been held that it should not be interpreted to mean that the scope of Section 33C(2) is exactly the same as in Section 33C(1) and further pointed out that, "the three categories of claim mentioned in Section 33C(1) fall under Section 33C(2) and in that sense, claims not based on settlements, awards or made under the provisions of Chapter V-A, may also be competent under Section 33C(2) and that may illustrate its wider scope." In other words, the labour Court acting under Section 33C(2) is competent to entertain claims made de hors settlements, awards or the provisions of Chapter V-A. Section 33C(2) takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled would be computed in terms of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers and it is open to the labour Court to interpret an award or settlement on which the workman's right rests. In the said case, under the Shastri Award, the clerks of the Central operating adding machines were declared to be entitled to 'special allowance' of Rs. 10 per month. Four clerks had made a claim for computation before the labour Court which was resisted by the bank on the ground that the clerks came within the category referred to in the award and that the labour Court under Section 33C(2) had no jurisdiction to determine whether the clerks came within the category or not. In that connection, in the said decision, it was held that the enquiry as to whether the four clerks came within the category was purely 'incidental' and necessary for the purpose of giving relief asked for, and therefore, the labour Court had jurisdiction to enquire whether the clerks answered the description of the category mentioned in the Shastri Award, which not only declared the right but also the corresponding liability of the employer Bank as it took the view that this was purely a case of establishing identity of the claimants as coming
within the distinguished category of clerks in default of which it would have been impossible to give relief to anybody falling in the category. The enquiry into the category of the employees was limited only to the clerks' identity and did not extend either to new investigation as to their rights or bank's liability to them, which had declared profit in the year and the labour Court did not have to investigate the same. It was also held that essentially, therefore, the function of the labour Court was in the nature of a function of a Court in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the labour Court had jurisdiction to determine by an incidental enquiry whether the four clerks came in the category which was entitled to a special allowance.
Section 14 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 13 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Gopal Bhiva & Ors on 9 May, 1963
11. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as originally enacted does (sic.) not provide any speedy remedy to the individual workmen enabling them to enforce their existing rights. This provision, to certain extent, fill up the lacuna which was discovered. It purported to supply a speedy remedy to an individual workman after an award was made to implement or execute the relief given to him under the award. Sub-section (1) of the Section provided that if money was due to an employee from is employer under an award or decision of the Industrial Tribunal, it may be recovered as an arrears of land revenue. Sub-section (2) of Section 33C deals with the cases where any workman was entitled to receive from the employer any benefit under an award or decision of an industrial tribunal which was capable of being computed in terms of money, and it provided that the amount of which the said benefit could be computed may be determined subject to the Rules and the amount to determine could be recovered as provided. Sec, 33C provides both a forum and procedure for computing both monetary as well as non-monetory benefits in terms of money and further provides machinery for recovery of such
claims. I have considered three decisions of the Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Kharbanda (K.L.), 1962 (1) LLJ 234 (SC); in case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan, 1963 (2) LLJ 89 (SC) : AIR 1964 SC 743 and in case of Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, 1963 (1) LLJ 608 (SC) : AIR 1964 SC 752.
Punjab National Bank Limited vs K. L. Kharbanda on 2 February, 1962
In case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda, reported in 1962 (1) LLJ 234 (SC), construing the words "any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money,", has held that where the benefit to which a workman may be entitled has not already been calculated, for example, in an award, which confers on him the benefit sub-sec, (2) would apply for computation of such benefit, if there is a dispute about it. Glossing on this holding, in case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajogopalan, reported in 1963 (2) LLJ 89 (SC), it has been held that it should not be interpreted to mean that the scope of Section 33C(2) is exactly the same as in Section 33C(1) and further pointed out that, "the three categories of claim mentioned in Section 33C(1) fall under Section 33C(2) and in that sense, claims not based on settlements, awards or made under the provisions of Chapter V-A, may also be competent under Section 33C(2) and that may illustrate its wider scope." In other words, the labour Court acting under Section 33C(2) is competent to entertain claims made de hors settlements, awards or the provisions of Chapter V-A. Section 33C(2) takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled would be computed in terms of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers and it is open to the labour Court to interpret an award or settlement on which the workman's right rests. In the said case, under the Shastri Award, the clerks of the Central operating adding machines were declared to be entitled to 'special allowance' of Rs. 10 per month. Four clerks had made a claim for computation before the labour Court which was resisted by the bank on the ground that the clerks came within the category referred to in the award and that the labour Court under Section 33C(2) had no jurisdiction to determine whether the clerks came within the category or not. In that connection, in the said decision, it was held that the enquiry as to whether the four clerks came within the category was purely 'incidental' and necessary for the purpose of giving relief asked for, and therefore, the labour Court had jurisdiction to enquire whether the clerks answered the description of the category mentioned in the Shastri Award, which not only declared the right but also the corresponding liability of the employer Bank as it took the view that this was purely a case of establishing identity of the claimants as coming
within the distinguished category of clerks in default of which it would have been impossible to give relief to anybody falling in the category. The enquiry into the category of the employees was limited only to the clerks' identity and did not extend either to new investigation as to their rights or bank's liability to them, which had declared profit in the year and the labour Court did not have to investigate the same. It was also held that essentially, therefore, the function of the labour Court was in the nature of a function of a Court in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the labour Court had jurisdiction to determine by an incidental enquiry whether the four clerks came in the category which was entitled to a special allowance.