U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Laxman Kumar and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The workman moved an application u/s 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for computation of certain benefits, namely, arrears of pay pursuant to the recommendation of the V Pay Commission. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner, who is the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, implemented the recommendation and paid the arrears to the workmen. The Labour Court, while recording the payment of arrears, imposed a cost of Rs. 300/- and also directed the petitioner to pay interest on delayed payment. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, has filed the present writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the workman could not be adjudicated u/s 33-C(2) of the Act by the Labour Court since there was no previous adjudication on this issue and consequently the entire proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Act was ex facie, illegal and without jurisdiction.

In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another v. Brijpal Singh 2005 III LLJ 1003 (SC) in which it was held that one of the precondition for filing a claim u/s 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was, that the benefit which was sought to be executed u/s 33-C(2) of the Act must be an existing right which had already been adjudicated upon.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the payment of arrears to the workman, there was no previous adjudication by any Labour Court or Tribunal, and therefore, the Misc. Application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act was patently erroneous.

In Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameswar and Others, the Supreme Court held at p. 9 of LLJ:

It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed 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 an industrial workman and his employer. Since the scope of Sub-section (2) is wider than that of Sub-section (1) and the sub-section is not confined to cases arising under an award, settlement or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, there is no reason to hold that a benefit provided by a statute or a Scheme made thereunder, without there being any thing contrary under such statute or Section 33-C(2), cannot fall within Sub-section 2. Consequently, the benefit provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remains to be computed must fall under Sub-section (2) and the Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in respect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial workman and his employer.

In my opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. The workman was to be given a benefit of arrears of salary under the V Pay Commission which benefit, namely, the arrears of pay was not disputed by the petitioner. In fact, during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner themselves implemented the V Pay Commission and gave the arrears to its workers, including the workman involved in the present writ petition. Consequently, there existed a benefit which was an existing benefit and which arose in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workmen and its employer. Such a benefit was an existing benefit which was not paid to the workman and accordingly, the workman rightly filed the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act and it was not necessary that the workman had to undergo the rigorous procedure of raising a reference u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the application of the workman u/s 33-C(2) of the Act was maintainable. Since the petitioner themselves paid the arrears belatedly, the Labour Court was justified in directing payment of interest on delayed payment and for the payment of cost of the litigation. This Court finds that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court was perfectly justified.

In view of the aforesaid, writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily.