Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1058

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mangey Ram – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 7218 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).19370 OF 2019)
Decided On : 12-09-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.G. Bhagat,Adv. Ms. Archna Midha,Adv. Ms. Rupal Taneja,Adv. Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ronak Karanpuria,Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Labour Court's jurisdiction in deciding the workmen's entitlement and computing the benefit under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, Section 33-C(2) - Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act - The court discussed the validity of the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act quantifying and directing payment of amount subsequent to the date of the Award dated 10.06.1997. The court also referred to the scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and highlighted the limitations of the Labour Court's jurisdiction in deciding the workmen's entitlement and computing the benefit under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking payment of wages subsequent to an award. The Labour Court allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay the wages from the date of the award. The appellant had previously approached the High Court assailing the award, and the High Court confirmed the reinstatement but left the decision of payment of wages for the pending period to the employer.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order of the Labour Court directing payment of wages subsequent to the award was unsustainable as the High Court had directed the employer to consider the representation of the respondent for wages for the intervening period. The court also highlighted the limitations of the Labour Court's jurisdiction in deciding the workmen's entitlement and computing the benefit under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act quantifying and directing payment of amount subsequent to the date of the Award dated 10.06.1997, and the interpretation of the scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to calculation of monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated, and it cannot decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The court also emphasized that the scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to calculation of monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated.
Final Decision: The court directed that the amount withdrawn by the respondent would stand in compliance of all wages that are payable to the respondent subsequent to the Award dated 10.06.1997 till actual reinstatement, and the matter shall rest at that. The amount available in deposit shall be withdrawn by the appellant, and the accrued interest on the deposit shall be paid to the respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is limited to calculating monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated; it cannot decide entitlement first and then compute benefits under Section 33-C(2) (!) . - The scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to calculation of monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated (!) . - The High Court directed that payment of wages for the intervening period is to be considered by the employer, and the Labour Court's 2011 order directing payment from the Award date was unsustainable given those directions (!) , (!) , (!) . - The interim deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 and withdrawal of Rs. 6,00,000 were acknowledged, with directions that Rs. 6,00,000 comply with wages payable post-Award up to reinstatement; Rs. 4,00,000 to be returned to the appellant; accrued interest to the respondent (!) , (!) . - The appellant’s obligation to consider the respondent’s representation for intervening period wages, as directed by the High Court, was affirmed; Labour Court's order directing payment without such consideration was set aside (!) , (!) , (!) . - The matter was disposed of with the directive that deposited amount and interest be handled as specified, and no further remand required (!) , (!) .

How to determine the Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to entitlements versus monetary benefits?

What is the scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in calculating monetary benefits where the right has already been adjudicated?

How to address payment of wages for intervening periods when an employer's consideration of the employee's representation is required by higher court directions?

JUDGMENT :

A.S. BOPANNA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant-Sugar Mills is before us assailing the Order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case NO.42 of 2011 while taking note of a petition filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The genesis of the case for the said petition being filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court is that Labour Court at the first instance in the proceedings bearing Adjudication Case NO.64/1996 had passed an award and ordered that the termination order dated 07.12.1994 against the respondent by the appellant herein was not proper and legal. Accordingly, it was ordered that the respondent herein be reinstated into service during the up-coming crushing season. As far as payment of back-wages is concerned, it was quantified at Rs.5,000/-, as compensation. With regard to the intervening wages during which the writ petition was pending, it was ordered that the respondent herein is relegated to the employer before whom he shall make a representation in that regard. The said order insofar as the said direction has attained the finality.

4. The respondent instituted a petition under Section 33-C(2) of I.D.Act seeking for payment of wages subsequent to the Award dated 10.06.1997 since reinstatement was not made. Labour Court vide Order dated 06.08.2011 allowed the said application and directed the appellant herein to pay the wages from the date of Award i.e. 10.06.1997 up to the date on which respondent joined the service.

5. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that the said amount as ordered by the Labour Court is payable. However, what we notice is that the appellant herein had approached the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Civil Misc. Application NO.4169 of 2001 (Old No.6958 of 1998) assailing the Award dated 10.06.1997. In the said proceedings, the High Court having taken note of the order of the Labour Court confirmed the Award dated 10.06.1997 insofar as the reinstatement is concerned.

6. In that view the only question for consideration is with regard to the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 06.08.2011 under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act quantifying and directing payment of amount subsequent to the date of the Award dated 10.06.1997. In that regard we have already taken note that the matter was pending before the High Court subsequent to the Award dated 10.06.1997 and the High Court while ultimately disposing of the writ petition had in that regard directed that the payment of the wages for the period when the writ petition was pending is a matter to be considered by the employer.

7. Pursuant to the Award dated 10.06.1997 respondent has been reinstated by order dated 26.07.2005. The respondent made representation before the appellant claiming wages for the intervening period. By order dated 26.07.2005 the appellant rejected claim of the respondent for the wages for the intervening period on the principle of ‘no work, no pay’. The same would stand answered by the order of the High Court in C.M.A. No.4169/2001.

8. When the matter of payment of wages from 1995 to 2005 was left to the decision of the employer, the wages as ordered by the Labour Court in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act would not be justified. Since the High Court had directed that the appellant herein shall consider the representation of the respondent for wages for intervening period, the consideration in that regard was necessary to be made by the appellant and the order of the Labour Court dated 06.08.2011 is unsustainable. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 235, it was held by this Court as under:

“12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document