SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

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)

       

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.

*************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top