1. Dispute concerning entitlement of daily-rated employees to salary in regular scale for the period preceding the implementation of a judicial precedent. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 183
1999(9) Supreme 258
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Saghir Ahmad and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Director General (Works), C.P.W.D. -Appellant
versus
Ashok Kumar and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 283-1395 of 1996
Decided on 11-2-1999
The Court held that if an employer has already implemented a judicial decision by paying employees in the regular scale of pay, they cannot argue that the right to such pay must be separately adjudicated before an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable.
Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33-C(2)-Application to recover money due from employer-Condition precedent to entertain-Employees of work charged establishment-Employer paying regular pay scale pursuant to decision of Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, (1986) 1 SCC 639-Employees application u/s 33-C(2) for recovery of pay for period prior to Judgment in Surinder Singh s case-Application opposed as not maintainable unless employees right for regular pay scale adjudicate first-Not tenable-Employer himself implemented decision in Surinder Singh s case-No question of adjudication of right to regular pay scale - Application rightly entertained by Labour Court. (Paras 2 & 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of application under Section 33-C(2), Industrial Disputes Act, in the absence of prior adjudication of the right to receive salary in regular scale. (Para 2 )
3. Employer's implementation of a judicial decision by paying regular scale precludes the argument that the right to such pay requires prior adjudication. (Para 3 )
4. Implementation of a judicial precedent by an employer constitutes recognition of entitlement, obviating the need for prior adjudication before computing benefits under Section 33-C(2), Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 3 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. When is an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act maintainable regarding salary entitlements?
An application under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable when the entitlement has been previously adjudicated or recognized by the employer. If an employer has already implemented a judicial decision by paying the regular scale, the right is considered recognized, and prior adjudication is not required. (Para 2 , 3 )
ORDER
Pursuant to this Court s judgment in Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD1 the appellants admittedly have been paying salary to the daily-rated employees in the regular scale of pay. The dispute in this case, however, is confined to the period from the date of employment till 31-3-1987, i.e., the period prior to the date on which the decision in Surinder Singh case1 was implemented.
2. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that unless there was an adjudication of the rights of the respondents to receive their salary in the regular scale of pay, their application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act could not have been entertained and the Labour Court was not justified in allowing the application. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak2 in which it was laid down that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefits so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It was also pointed out that it is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer that an application under Section 33-C(2) would lie.
3. Since in the instant case the appellant himself had implemented the decision of this Court in Surinder Singh case (supra) and had been paying salary to the respondents in the regular scale of pay in which the employees of the work-charged establishment are being paid it cannot be urged today that the respondents right to receive salary in the regular scale of pay should first be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court before they are given the salary in the regular scale of pay in which the employees of the work-charged establishment are being paid. We are not prepared to accept the said argument made by learned counsel. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeals dismissed.
*************
