M/s. Sahara India, Ranchi vs Ajay Kumar Pathak @ Ajay Pathak

Narendra Nath Tiwari

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in M.J. Case No. 46 of 2000, whereby learned labour court has directed the petitioner-Management to pay the back wages to the respondent-workman. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the sole ground that learned labour court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue/controversy, which was raised in the application filed u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the ''I.D. Act'').

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned labour court has determined a question/issue of disputed fact, though the same is not permissible under the aforesaid provisions of the I.D. Act. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in '' Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, . It has been submitted that the concerned workman was under suspension, but he had claimed that full time work was taken from him and he is entitled to full back wages. Learned labour court has erroneously accepted the said claim of the concerned workman and directed the petitioner to pay the wages of the said period. The order of learned labour court is beyond the scope and jurisdiction, envisaged u/s 33(C) (2) of the I.D. Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and materials on record.

On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the concerned workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 19.07.1999. According to the concerned workman, he was under suspension before his dismissal. But during period of suspension, full time work was taken from him through out the period. The concerned workman on that basis had claimed full back wages of the said period till his dismissal. The petitioner, who was the opposite party, filed reply denying the claim of the workman and praying for dismissal of the application.

The workman, thereafter, examined witnesses and brought documentary evidences to prove his case. As against the said oral and documentary evidences, the petitioner-Management did not bring any evidence. Even the objection was not proved by anybody.

Since there was no contrary evidence on record, learned labour court found that the concerned workman proved that he is entitled to get full back wages for the suspension period as he had worked for full time during the said period. As there was no contrary material on record against the said claim, learned labour court calculated the amount payable to the concerned workman and directed the petitioner-Management to pay the same.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the order, I find that the impugned order of learned labour court is well discussed and supported by sound reason.

When there was no evidence to rebut the claim of the concerned workman, there was nothing to be determined by learned labour court. The contention of the petitioner-Management that learned labour court has determined the disputed question, which is beyond its jurisdiction, u/s 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act is without any substance. Determination is required when there is denial of the claim by the other side based on material on record. When there was no material to rebut the claim of the concerned workman, which was proved by him by adducing evidences, there was no occasion for adjudication of the claim. Learned labour court has, thus, calculated the back wages and directed the petitioner-Management to pay the same.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi(supra), the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, the adjudication of the dispute is outside the scope of a proceeding u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. It was held that labour court has no jurisdiction to first decide workmen''s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power u/s 33-C(2) of the Act.

In the instant case, since there was no material or evidence on record in opposition, there was nothing to be adjudicated upon and decided. Learned Labour Court has, thus, accepted the claim and computed the wages. Learned Labour Court has considered the principle of law, facts of the case and material on record and has recorded sound reasons in support of its order. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.