Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.24 seconds)Section 36A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak & Anr. on 26 November, 1993
27.Thus, reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner/management on
the verdict in "Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh
W.P. (Civil) 4149/15 Page 34 of 37
Razak and Another" 1995 1 SCC 235 with specific reference to
the observations in Para 12 of the said verdict is misplaced in as
much as the observations in Para 12 of the said verdict relied upon,
whereby appeals therein against the invocation of Section 33C(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been allowed, it is
essential to observe that in that case the claim of the
respondents/workmen was to the effect that they were all daily
rated/ casual workers and they were seeking wages to be paid to
them on the same rate as the regular workers and the said aspect
had not earlier been settled by adjudication and recognition by the
employer and thus the stage of computation of that benefit could
not have been said to have reached and in that particular case, the
claim of the workman of equal pay for equal work was disputed
and thus without adjudication of the dispute resulting in acceptance
of their claim, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there
could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to
attract Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Central Bank Of India Ltd vs P.S. Rajagopalan Etc on 19 April, 1963
(Supra) as observed elsewhere hereinabove that the determination
of the workman's right to receive a benefit even if disputed by the
management may have to be computed by the Labour Court before
proceeding to compute the benefits in terms of money and that the
Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether
the workman has a right to receive the benefit and if the said right
is not disputed, nothing more needs to be done and the Labour
Court can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in terms of
money and as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case
though, this power given to the Labour Court to allow an
individual workman to execute or implement his existing
individual rights is virtually exercising execution powers in some
cases, it is nevertheless but settled that it is open to the Executing
Court to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution though
undoubtedly the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree nor
can it add or subtract from the provision of the decree and that
these limitations would apply to the Labour Court, but like the
Executing Court, the Labour Court would also be competent to
interpret the award or settlement on which the workman based
his/her claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and that for the purpose of making necessary determination
under Section 33C(2) of the said enactment it would, in appropriate
cases be open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or
settlement on which the workman's right rests.