The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to computing benefits due to a workman and does not extend to determining the status of a workman.

( 1 ) THIS batch of Writ Appeals and writ Petitions raise a common question of law and may be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. As many as 138 persons filed petitions before the Labour court under section 33-C (2) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming that they were working as casual workers for a period of over 120 days and were doing work of a regular nature in the South Central Railway, secunderabad Division and had thus acquired a temporary status. Yet, they were treated as casual labour and paid daily wages, although according to them they had acquired temporary status and were entitled to monthly rate of wages. They, therefore claimed that the South central Railway is bound to treat them as temporary employees and give them the benefits due to a temporary employee. They applied to the Labour Court to award the amount due to them and to direct the respondent-the Divisional supreintendent, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, to pay the same.

( 2 ) IT is necessary to refer to the claim of each of the petitioners before the Labour Court in detail. Suffice to mention that all of them claimed that they had worked for more than 120 days within a period of six months and had acquired temporary status. As many as 94 of them claimed that they had worked for the requisite period prior to 1966 and had acquired that status; while the others claimed to have worked for a period not less than the minimum period required, about five years before filing of their petitions. All these petitions were filed in 1976 and they came up for enquiry before the Labour Court sometime in August, 1980 and were disposed of by a common order dated 24-11-1980.

( 3 ) THE South Central Railway opposed these petitions inter-alia denying that the claimants had acauired the status of temporary employees. They pleaded that as per the standing orders, records of more than ten years, were destroyed and therefore they cannot admit that any of these employees had worked for the requisite period and had acquired the temporary status as pleaded by them. They further pleaded that the claim was barred by time. They averred that the claimants-petitioners, were doing the work of a casual nature in construction work units and not on works of a regular nature. They were working on projects as causal Khalasis. The South Central railway specifically averred that all of them (casual labourers) were given service cards, which, if produced would show the length of their service and the project on which they worked. They further pleaded that the claim putforth by the claimants was fictitious and liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) AT the enquiry, the petitioners examined themselves; and on behalf of the Railway which is the employer, a section Officer was examined. The employer also filed Ex. M-1 dated 16-5-1980 a Memorandum to evidence that the records were destroyed. The presiding Officer, Labour Court, on a consideration of the respective claims and the evidence referred to above, came to the conclusion that inasmuch as no record was produced by the Railways, an adverse inference should be drawn and the only witness examined by the Railways, was non in-charge of the particular section which the petitioners were working; and there is no reason why the evidence of the petitioners who examined themselves as w. W1. should not be accepted. He accordingly allowed the entire claim made by each of the petitioners. The south Central Railway has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution calling in question the order of the Labour Court.

( 5 ) THE principal contentions raised by the Management before our learned brother Ramanujulu Naidu J. , were that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under section 33-C (2) of the Act, that there was no evidence to establish that any of the petitioners before the Labour court was "a workman" and that the claim made by them was time-b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document