Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Bhawsar Home Furnishers And Decorators vs Dattaram Pandurang Mistri And Ors. on 25 September, 1987 cites

U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs R. K. Shukla Anr. Etc on 30 April, 1969

In support of his contention the relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. R.K. Shukla and Ors. . But, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, can it at all be said that there was a dispute about the retrenchment? As stated above, here the question was whether the services of the workmen were terminated with effect from 1st July, 1978 and if that fact was proved, it goes without saying that they were retrenched from that day as per definition of retrenchment under Section 2(OO) of the Act. From the evidence discussed above, it is crystal clear that the termination was proved beyond shadow of doubt. And merely because the petitioners contended that they had not terminated the services of the workmen we cannot throw away the applications preferred under Section 33C(2) of the Act. When such a dispute if raised by an employer, it has to be looked into and resolved. It is well settled law that an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act is maintainable where a workman claims an amount of money but such a claim has to be based on an existing right. The existing right itself should have vested in the workman either under a settlement or an award or under the provision of statute. Once the right is shown to be existing, the Labour Court has the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the application. Mere denial of such an existing right by an employer does not take away the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the application. Denial of such a right would only require the Labour Court to enquire whether there is an existing right. The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to decide and determine that question. Such an enquiry would be incidental to the main determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court by Section 33C(2) of the Act. Just as an executing Court is competent to interpret a decree, so also the Labour Court is competent to construe the settlement, award or statute under which the right is claimed by a workman. Right of a workman under either a settlement, or an award or statute when disputed by an employer, the Labour Court would be within its jurisdiction to determine whether such a right is vested in the workman and, in doing so, it has to interpret the settlement, award or statute under which the right is claimed. Therefore, in our case, just because the petitioners pleaded that the services of the workmen were not terminated and, therefore, they were not retrenched and that they voluntarily abandoned the services, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, as pointed out above, was not ousted. And assuming for the sake of argument that on facts and law there is some doubt in reaching to such a conclusion, even then I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in favour of the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 76 - J C Shah - Full Document
1