Dayal Dass vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the order/award of the Labour Court dated 1.10.1986 in the application made by the petitioner u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

None has appeared for respondent No. 2 inspite of efforts made to serve notice to the respondent and its counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner was employed with respondent No. 2. His services were terminated. He raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its award annexure P/1 dated 24.9.1984 did not grant the relief of reinstatement. The Labour Court found that the termination of the services of the petitioner was perfectly in order and justified. However, the Labour Court observed that petitioner is entitled to retrenchment compensation as per provision of Section 25-F of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner argued that this award has not been challenged by the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act claiming retrenchment compensation.

The Labour Court by its impugned order rejected the application. The iast paragraph of the impugned order is as under :

"The Court in clear terms held that the termination of the service of the workman was perfectly in order and justified and he is not entitled to any other benefit..." After having gone this far the court could not under any jurisdiction proceed to observe that the workman in its opinion was still entitled to retrenchment compensation, There observations having been made beyond jurisdiction are a nullity and must be ignored. The claim is not maintainable. The application is dismissed."

Counsel for the petitioner argued that application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act is to be dealt with like execution petition and if there is a pre- existing right, the petitioner can be paid the amount which is due to him. According to learned counsel for petitioner observation of the Labour Court i.e. award and nullity was uncalled for. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The award annexure P/1 is not challenged by the respondent and the petitioner is held entitled to the retrenchment compensation. It was not for the Labour Court then to say that the award was wrong or a nullity. The Labour Court has gone beyond its jurisdiction in observing as such. In view of the above reasons I find that the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed by him.

The petitioner, as per paragraph 5 of the writ petition has claimed Rs. 1512.50 as retrenchment compensation. The petitioner shall be entitled for the same.

As a result, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to Rs. 1512.50 as retrenchment compensation. He shall be entitled to recover the said amount from respondent No. 2.

Petition allowed.