Sham Sunder Beri vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others

N.K. Aggarwal, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Labour Court, Jalandhar, whereby the workman''s application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'') has been allowed.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of constructing buildings as a contractor. Respondent No. 2 Lalji filed an application before the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) claiming himself to be employed with the petitioner and demanding a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as arrears of wages for the period from 1981 to February, 1983 with interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner in his reply denied any relationship of employer and employee between himself and the respondent. The petitioner disputed the claim on merits as well. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, allowed the workman''s claim and also ordered that in case of non-payment of the arrears within four months, the amount shall be paid with interest @ 12%.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Labour Court proceeded to determine the rights and obligations of the parties without jurisdiction. The Labour Court had a very limited jurisdiction in the matter. It could only execute an award already given by a competent Court. The petitioner had raised a serious dispute by denying relationship of master and servant. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into that dispute. It could only be seen in reference made u/s 10(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover the workman had put forward his claim with abnormal delay.

He demanded wages from 1981 to February, 1983 and filed the claim in December, 1991. Even an ordinary civil suit was barred by limitation by that time. It is further argued that though Section 33-C(2) did not provide for any period of limitation, the claim should be filed within a reasonable period. Further, the workman''s claim was wholly vague and lacked specific particulars. The workman did not state in his claim petition as to in what capacity he had worked with the petitioner and what were his monthly wages. He did not clarify if he had left the job or his services were terminated. He even did not explain in his petition as to how he had computed and worked out the amount of Rs. 35,000/-.

Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has, on the other hand, argued that the workman was engaged on a salary of Rs. 4000/- per month. He used to look after the construction work. The employer did not produce any record to show payment of wages to the workman. The Labour Court has not allowed payment of interest as claimed. It is only the future interest @ 12 per cent which has been allowed.

A question once arose in Municipal Committee Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another, , whether the workman had been posted as Clerk or he performed the duties of Clerk. It was held that such a dispute could not be adjudicated u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. It was further held that although no limitation had been provided for filing a claim u/s 33-C(2), it would not entitle a workman to raise a claim which is unreasonably belated without plausible explanation.

The Supreme Court had also an occasion to examine a matter on the ground of laches in Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corp. and others, 1990 SCC 752 . That was a case where the workman had filed an application u/s 33-C(2) for certain benefits consequent upon his reinstatement in service. He filed a second application claiming allowances and other benefits. It was held that his second application was rightly rejected on the ground of laches.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, it has been again held by the Supreme Court that where the very basis of the claim or 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 entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding u/s 33-C(2) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has, on the other hand, placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Ramkrishan Ramnath Bidi Manufacturing, Kamptee Vs. Labour Court, Nagpur, It has been held that Section 33-C(2) comes into play when the benefits have to be computed and calculated and there is a dispute as to the calculation or computation.

The learned counsel has further referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., . It has been held that in determining the scope of Section 33-C care must be taken not to exclude cases which ultimately fall within its purview. It must, however also be borne in mind that the cases which fall within Section 10(1) of the Act cannot be brought within the scope of Section 33-C.

On a consideration of the controversy, it is found that the workman filed a vague application claiming wages from the year 1981 to February, 1983. He did not specify the month in the year 1981 from which the salary was due to him. The amount of monthly salary was also not specified in the claim petition. He stated in his petition as under :

"That I was employed with the abovesaid employer and working as (A) the said employer did pay my earned wages for the period of 1981 to February, 1983 which becomes Rs. 35,000/-.

It is, therefore, prayed that the Court be pleased to determine the amount due to the petitioner with 18% interest which comes to Rs. 35,000/- + 55,650/- interest.

: 35.000.00 Interest : : 55,650.00 ----------- G. Total : : 90,650.00 ----------- Sd/- Applicant"

The workman did not produce any evidence to show that he had worked with the petitioner. He did not explain the delay also. The question of relationship as master and servant has been raised. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon. The workman did not specify as to what post he held and the work he performed. The order of the Labour Court is thus, found to be wholly unsustainable in law.

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Order of the Labour Court, dated October 20, 1997 is quashed. No costs.