Back
K.C.DAS GUPTA, K.N.WANCHOO, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.C.SHAH
Central Bank Of India LTD. – Appellant
Versus
P. S. Rajagopalan – Respondent
What is the scope of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in this case? What is the Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) when the workman’s right to receive the benefit is disputed by the employer? What determines whether a benefit under the Sastry Award (e.g., special allowance for operating adding machines) is payable to a workman?
Key Points: - The opening clause of S. 33C(2) covers cases where a workman claims a monetary value for a benefit, even if the right to the benefit is disputed by the employer. (!) - The Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the workman has a right to receive the benefit as alleged, and only then proceed to compute the monetary value. (!) - S. 33C(2) is broader than S. 33C(1) and may encompass claims not strictly under a settled award, though certain limitations apply (e.g., not to supersede disputes under S. 10(1)); the Labour Court may interpret the underlying award/settlement where necessary. (!) (!) - The special allowance under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award is not automatically payable to Comptists; the determination depends on the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the post, not merely on nomenclature (e.g., adding machine operators). (!) (!) - The matter is remanded to the Labour Court to allow evidence and determine whether respondents’ work corresponds to Comptists, after which the Labour Court should compute and decide. (!) (!)
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: This group of several appeals has been placed together for final disposal, because the appeals included in the group raise a common question of law in regard to the construction of S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). We propose to deal with this point in Civil Appeals Nos. 823 to 826 of 1962 which have been preferred by the appellant, the Central Bank of India Ltd., against the respondents, it employees; and in accordance with our decision on the said point the other appeals included in this group would be dealt with on the merits.
2. Civil Appeals 823 to 826 of 1962 arise out of applications made by four respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Act. The case for each one of the respondents was that besides attending to his routine duties as clerk, he had been operating the adding machine provided for use in the clearing department of the Branch during the period mentioned in the list annexed to the petition and it was alleged that as such. he was entitled to the payment of Rs. 10/- per month as special allowance for operating the adding machine as provided for under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Aw
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
