Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.09 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Shri Vishnu Kumar Mangla vs Dhaneshwar Gupta & Sons on 28 February, 2012
It was further held in Vishnu Kumar Mangla (Supra) as under:"The ratio of
these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement
of the workman to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or
recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to the entitlement is not
incidental to the benefit claim and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding
u/s 33 C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the
Workman's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that
basis in exercise of its power under section 33 C(2) of the Act. It is only when the
entitlement, has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and thereafter
for the purpose or implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires
interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power
under section 33 C (2) like that of the executing Court's power to interpret the decree for
the purpose of its execution".
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Razak on 20 October, 1994
13 In the case titled as Vishnu Kumar Mangla (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has relied upon one judgment titled as MCD Vs Ganesh, Razak, 1995 1 SCC 235,
LCA 09/12 7/9
in which it was interalia held that: "the claim which is not based on the existing rights
is not maintainable u/s 33 C (2) of the I.D Act, 1947 as the proceedings under this
section are in the nature of execution proceedings and the Labour Court has no
jurisdiction to first decide the entitlement of the workman and on that basis to pay the
benefits".
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
1