2010 Supreme(SC) 518

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. PRASAD
Vijaya Bank
Versus
Shyamal Kumar Lodh
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4211 & 4212 OF 2007
Decided on : 06-07-2010

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of statute – Words used by Legislature – Has to be given meaning intended by Legislature – No word can be rendered redundant – Explanation is appended to a section to explain the meaning of words contained in that section – Not to control their meaning. (Para 13, 14)

       (b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 33C(2) – Expression "as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government" – Explanation – Expression "Labour Court" includes any court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State" – Explanation only widens the choice of appropriate Government to specify any court as Labour Court – It does not dispense with the requirement of specification of court by appropriate Government – Instantly, Diburgarh court established by State Government under State Act not specified by appropriate Government – Dose not have jurisdiction over dispute in question. (Para 13, 14)

       AIR 1968 SC 205 – Relied upon

       (c) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Section 10A – Dispute pertaining to subsistence allowance – Concerned Labour Court constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Employer appellant bank situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction – Said Labour court has jurisdiction. (Para 16)

       (d) Administration of justice – Mention of wrong provision – Incorrect label of application and mentioning wrong provision – Neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the jurisdiction of a court – Relief sought for, falling within jurisdiction of the Court cannot be thrown out on such ground. (Para 16)

       Facts of the case:

       Shyamal Kumar Lodh-respondent is an employee of the appellant-Vijaya Bank which is a Nationalised Bank. The employee filed application before the Labour Court, Dibrugarh constituted by the State Government under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for an award computing his suspension/subsistence allowance under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

       The appropriate Government in relation to an employee like the respondent is the Central Government and the employee had filed the application before the Labour Court constituted by the State Government and it has not been specified by the Central Government.

       The appellant appeared before the Labour Court and questioned its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on the ground that the said Court having not been specified by the Central Government under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

       The Labour Court over-ruled that objection and held that its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute is not ousted. Employer aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred writ application which was registered as Civil Rule No. 3735 of 1995. A Single Judge of the High Court observed that : "as the Labour Court at Dibrugarh was not specified by the appropriate Government they have no jurisdiction to issue notice to the Petitioner in both the cases."

       During pendency of the proceeding before the Labour Court, the employee filed application seeking enhancement of the subsistence allowance and the Labour Court directed the employer to deposit recurring subsistence allowance in Court. Employer had also preferred writ petition against the aforementioned order dated 17thOctober, 1996 which was registered as Civil Rule No. 2771 of 1996. Following its earlier judgment passed in Civil Rule No. 3735 of 1995, the learned Single Judge by its order allowed the writ petition and quashed the aforesaid order.

       The appellant preferred separate appeals which were allowed by a common judgment. While doing so it concurred with the Single Judge that as the Labour Court at Dibrugarh has not been specified by the Central Government, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition preferred by the employee. However, on its finding that claim of subsistence allowance falls within Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment(Standing Order) Act, and the Branch of the Bank where the employee was working, fell within the limits of jurisdiction of Labour Court in question, it shall have jurisdiction to decide the claim.

       Finding of the Court:

       Dibrugarh Labour court did not have jurisdiction u/s 33C(2) of ID Act, 1947 but had jurisdiction u/s 10A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.