Shankar Rao B.M. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.—The petitioner filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. He contended that he was working in the Ware-

house Canteen of the 2nd respondent-Management. He alleged that till 1989 he has worked in the Warehouse Canteen where he was appointed

in 1986. He was in continuous service under the Management and the Management being a public sector undertaking, was bound to pay his

salary. The petitioner also contended that in 1986 he was paid daily wages of Rs. 10 per day. That no rest or overtime allowance or other benefits

were given to the petitioner. He alleged that he was illegally refused employment with effect from February 22, 1990. Therefore, he made a claim

u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act for wages from September 18, 1986 till the date of refusal of work to him, amounting to Rs. 47,360.

The Management disputed the claim. It raised the contention that the petitioner was not at all working under them and there was no master and

servant relationship between the Management and the worker. It was also contended by the Management that the worker has now raised a

dispute regarding the refusal of employment to him and that dispute is pending.

The Labour Court framed the following issues:

Whether the 1st party was appointed by the II party in the year 1986 on a daily wage of Rs. 10.00?

Whether the application is maintainable?

Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled to get claim of Rs. 47,360.00 for the period from 1986 to 1990?

Whether the II party has refused to take I party on duty with effect from February 22, 1990?

Whether the I party was absented from duty?

The I issue as to whether the petitioner was appointed by the 2nd respondent-Management in 1986 on a daily wage of Rs. 10. This issue

essentially involves the question as to whether there is master and servant relationship between the Management and the petitioner, and which

question, if established alone would raise the question of wages u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. That question goes to the root of the matter regarding the

jurisdiction of the Labour Court to invoke Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction u/s 33-C(2) of the Act to examine

and adjudicate the dispute as to whether there is master and servant relationship between the Management and the worker, basing on which the

question of payment of wages would arise. Such a dispute is beyond the competence of the Labour Court in Section 33-C(2) proceedings.

Therefore, essentially the proceeding initiated by the petitioner herein against the 2nd respondent-management is not maintainable.

If the proceeding is not maintainable, necessarily it should follow, that the Labour Court should not have entered the findings on the other issues

raised by the petitioner, as that is outside the purview of the Labour Court. When the very proceeding itself is incompetent, no issues relating to the

claim made by the petitioner can be adjudicated. As such, when the Labour Court holds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application, it

ought not to have entered any finding on the other issues framed by it. Therefore, while upholding the finding that the Labour Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the petitioner u/s 33-C(2) of the Act, I vacate the finding entered by the Labour Court on the other

issues.

I am informed by Mr. Mukkannapa, learned counsel for the petitioner, that an application is made by the petitioner u/s 10 of the I.D. Act

challenging the illegal refusal of employment to him. The dispute raised by the petitioner-worker in the said proceeding shall be gone into and

decided untrammelled by any observations made by the Labour Court in the proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. I make it clear that I have not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions urged either by the petitioner or the 2nd respondent in these proceedings. The writ petition

is disposed of as above.