The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the claim is disputed by the employer. In such cases, the employee should seek relief under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

( 1 ) M. RADHAKRISHNA Reddi, the 2nd respondent, was in the service as a driver of Shri Bharati Velu Bus Serivce, the writ petitioner-company. On 19th december, 1970 while he was plying a stage carriage, A. P. G. 5990, on. route tirupathi to Nellore via Venkatagiri a. P. G. 5990 collided with a lorry and caused damage to the lorry and some person travelling also received injuries. He was arrested. His driving licence was seized on that day by the police authorities. Then he was tried before the I Class magistrate, Gudur. He was, in the trial, acquitted on 10th October, 1973. On 11th October, 1973 his driving licence was returned to him.

( 2 ) THE route from Nellore to Tirupathi via. , Venkatagiri, what is in common parlance termed was nationalised in october, 1973. The petitioner-company ceased to operate the route from the date of nationalisation. The employees of the petitioner-company thereafter came to be reappointed in the Road Transport Corporation. On. acquittal, the 2nd respondent was also employed by them on 12th October, 1973.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent, before the labour Court, Guntur, by application in m. P. No. 57 of 1974, claimed wages at rs. 190 (the wage that he was paid at the time of the accident) and for the period between 19th December, 1970 and 10th October, 1973 he claimed a sum of Rs. 6,500. He further made a claim for Rs. 6,500 towards gratuity for a period of 34 years (which was found later for 20 years ). In the petition, the 2nd respondent alleged that he originally joined as a driver in Venkateswara bus Union, in 1939, a firm of transport business. Sri Bharati Velu Bus Service succeeded the said firm. There claims were raised before the Labour Gourt against the petitioner-Company, under section 33-G of the Industrial Disputes act (XIV of 1947 ).

( 4 ) THE Company disputed the claim of the 2nd respondent that he was not entitled to the wages in Rs. 6,500 for the period between 19th December, 1970 and 100th October, 1973 as he was arrested on. 19th October, 1970 and from the date of his arrest he had no licence to ply the vehicle. Therefore, the company alleged that they were not obliged to pay wages for that period. The claim for "twenty years gratuity" was resisted as the petitioner-company was not liable in law to pay that amount. It was contended that the petitioner under section 33-C (2) of Act XIV of 1947, was not maintainable as the Labour court had no jurisdiction, to entertain such a disputed claim and further that the Labour Court was not the authority which could adjudicate the dispute and the company contended that the 2nd respondent should approach the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, for relief.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent was examined as w. W. 1 and Exhibit W-1 to W-7 were marked as documents.

( 6 ) THE Labour Court found:"the right of the workman to recover the amount can be enforced either by following a remedy under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act or under the provisions of section 33-C of the industrial Disputes Act. These remedies are in the alternative and are independent of each other. "in this view, the Labour Rourt held the petition under section 33-C (2) was maintainable, and ordered a sum of rs. 6,500 as wages and Rs. 570 (three months salary) as compensation. The claim for gratuity was rejected. It was found that the 2nd respondent was not responsible for the accident on 19th december, 1970 as he was acquitted in the criminal case. The petitioner company on the evidence on record found to have not stopped the driver from working. Therefore, in. law, the Company was obliged to pay him for the period upto his appointment by the Road transport Corporation. , on. 12th October, 1973. Adverting to this aspect, the Labour court found:"from the aforesaid discussion, it is established that the management has not given him the work because he was involved in an accident and a case was going on in the criminal court and it is not a case of abandonment. There is no severan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document