National Textiles Corporation vs Presiding Officer, IV Labour Court and Another

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The respondent No. 2 filed a claim application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming difference of pay. The workman alleged that he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk but was made to do the work of a cashier, and therefore, was entitled to be,, given the pay scale of a cashier.

On the other hand, the employer denied the claim of the workman and'' contended that the workman, as part of his job, was directed to handle the cash since there was no post of cashier. The labour Court, allowed the claim of the workman, holding that since the workman was doing the work of a cashier, he was entitled to be paid the wages of a cashier.

The scope of Section 33C (2) was considered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., wherein, the Supreme Court held-

In our opinion, on a fair and reasonable construction of sub-section (2) it is (sic) that if a workman''s right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may (sic) to be determined by the Labour Court. Before proceeding to compi(sic) benefit in terms of money, the Labour Court inevitably has to deal (sic) question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that be(sic) the said right is not disputed, nothing more needs to be done a (sic) Labour Court can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in te(sic) money; but if the said right is disputed the Labour Court must de(sic) that question and decide whether the workman has the right to rece(sic) benefit as alleged by him and it is only if the Labour Court answ(sic) point in favour of the workman then the next question of mak(sic) necessary computation can arise." and further held.

The claim u/s 33C(2) clearly postulates that the determina (sic) the question about computing the benefit in terms of money (sic) some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence (sic) right,and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to this (sic) determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court b(sic) section (2). As Maxwell has observed "where an Act con(sic) jurisdiction, it immediately also grants the power of doing all sue(sic) or employing such means as are essentially, necessary to its exe(sic) We must accordingly hold that Section 33C(2) takes within its pi(sic) cases of workmen who claimed that the benefit to which they are e(sic) should be computed in terms of money, even though the right (sic) benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employer (sic)

In Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Limited v. Rameshwar and (sic) the Supreme Court held:

It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computet(sic) be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or pr(sic) for and must arise in the -course of and in relation to the relation between an industrial workman and his employer. Since the sc(sic) sub-section (2) is wider than that of sub-section (1) and the sub-sec(sic) not confined to cases arising under an award, settlement or unc(sic) provisions of Chapter V-A, there is no reason to hold that a provided by a statute or a Scheme made thereunder, without there (sic) anything contrary under such statute or Section 33C (2), canr(sic) within sub-section 2. Consequently, the benefit provided in the (sic) scheme made under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Sc(sic) Act, 1948 which remains to be computed must fall under sub-sect(sic) and the Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and ti(sic) a claim, it being a claim in respect of an existing right arising fr(sic) relationship of an industrial workman and his employer.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, Court after reviewing its earlier decisions held-

The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis claim or the entitlement of the workman to a certain benefit is dis (sic) there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof (sic) employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental (sic) benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope (sic) proceeding u/s 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court jurisdiction to first decide the workmen''s entitlement and then proceeded to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power u/s 33C (2) of the Act.

In the aforesaid case, the daily-rated/casual workers of the Delhi Municipal Corporation had claimed the same pay as paid to the regular employees on the principle of ''equal pay for equal work'' on the ground that they were doing the same kind of work as regular employees were doing. The very basis of the claim was disputed by the Corporation as there was no earlier adjudication of the claim. Since the dispute relating to the entitlement was not incidental to the benefit claimed, the Supreme Court held that it was outside the scope of Section 33C (2) and, that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the workmen''s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated. The Supreme Court further observed-

It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretations that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court''s power u/s 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court''s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.

And at another place held--

The workmen''s claim of doing the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workmen in the principle of ''equal pay for equal work'' being disputed, without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract Section 33C (2). The mere fact that some other workmen are alleged to have made a similar claim by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is indicative of" the need for adjudication of the claim of entitlement of the benefit before computation of such a benefit could be sought. Respondents'' claim is not based on a prior adjudication made in the writ petitions filed by some other workmen upholding a similar claim which could be relied on as an adjudication enuring to the benefit of these respondents as well. The writ petitions by some other workmen to which some reference was casually made, particulars of which are not available in these matters, have, therefore, no relevance for the present purpose. It must, therefore, no relevance for the present purpose. It must, therefore, be held that the Labour Court as well as the High Court were in error in treating as maintainable the applications made u/s 33C(2) of the Act by these respondents.

The right to money which is sought to be calculated or the benefit which is sought to be computed u/s 33C(2) must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the workman and his employer. The Labour Court cannot entertain a claim wliich is not an existing right and which could be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference u/s 10 of the Act. Where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the ''workman to a certain benefit is disputed and there being no earlier adjudication or recommendation thereof by the employer, a dispute relating to such entitlement which is not incidental to the benefit claimed would be clearly outside the scope of Section 33C (2) of the Act.

In Tara and Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare and Ors., the Supreme Court held that the status and nature of employment of the workman being disputed could not be adjudicated in an application u/s 33C(2) unless there was a prior adjudication on merit.

In the present case, the claim of the workman is one of the entitlement on the post of cashier and consequently the benefit arising out of it. The, entitlement on a particular post can only be adjudicated u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This type of claim cannot be adjudicated u/s 33C (2) of the Act.

Consequently, the impugned order of the Labour Court passed u/s 33C (2) cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

This Court by an order dated 5.8.1997 had directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount pursuant to the order of the Labour Court. In the event, the amount has been deposited, it would be open to the petitioner to apply for a refund from the Labour Court. If such an application is made, the amount of deposit along with interest accrued on it shall be refunded to the petitioner.