State of U.P. and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), U.P. and Another

Tarun Agarwala, J.—In view of the office report dated 6th August, 2012 service is deemed to be sufficient upon respondent No. 2. No one appears on his behalf nor counter affidavit has been filed.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 27th May, 1997 u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The workman had filed a claim application for payment of his salary for the period 14th May, 1993 to 14th May, 1994. The Labour Court after considering the matter calculated the wages and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,480/- along with 12% interest to the respondent-workman.

The petitioner before the Labour Court disputed vehemently that the workman did not appear and did not work, in spite of notices being sent and, consequently, was not entitled for payment of wages for the period in question. The Labour Court without adjudicating on this aspect has mechanically granted the wages along with interest.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court finds that disputed questions could not be adjudicated in proceedings u/s 33(C)(2) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in a plethora of cases.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, . the Supreme Court held that where the entitlement of a certain benefit is disputed and there is no earlier adjudication and the dispute is not incidental to the benefit claimed, such claim goes out side the scope of 33(C)(2) of the Act.

In Tara and Others Vs. Director, Social Welfare and Others, . the Supreme Court held that where the status and nature of employment is disputed, the same cannot be adjudicated u/s 33(C)(2) of the Act.

In Chief Mining Engineer, Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameswar and Others, . the Supreme Court held that the right to the benefit sought must be an existing one i.e. already adjudicated upon.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the factum as to whether the workman had worked has been vehemently disputed. The Court further finds that the Labour Court has not gone into the question as to whether the workman had worked or not.

The Court is of the opinion that such disputed questions can only be adjudicated u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by raising a reference or by filing a claim application under the Payment of Wages Act. In the light of the aforesaid, the order of the Labour Court cannot be sustained and is quashed.

The writ petition is allowed.