The Labour Court is limited to interpreting existing awards or settlements and cannot adjudicate disputes without prior recognition of claims, as per Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

“to issue any writ or order or direction particularly a writ of certiorari by calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent pertains to MP No. 06 of 2006 dated 14.12.2015 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur District and allow the same, duly setting aside the order of the 2nd Respondent in MP No. 06 of 2006 dt.14-12-2015 passed therein and quash the same as being illegal, irrational and without authority of law and consequently set aside the said orders of 2nd Respondent and to pass”

2. Heard arguments of Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The workman filed Miscellaneous Petition vide M.P.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur (hereinafter called, 'the Labour Court') to direct the employer- society for payment of Rs.2,02,680/- with interest at 18% per annum from due date till the date of realization. The Labour Court, vide order dated 14.12.2015, partly allowed the said petition, directing the employer-society to pay Rs.2,02,680/- to the workman.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

The workman was joined as a paid secretary of erstwhile Mamdur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society of Chejarla Mandal, Nellore District for a salary of Rs.9,200/- per month. Later, on 12.01.2004, a resolution was passed suspending the workman for a period of six months with effect from 28.01.2004 basing on the report of the Nodal officer and the workman was directed to handover the charge to one Mr. Audisesha Reddy. Thereafter, another resolution dated 22.07.2004 was passed extending the suspension for a further period of six months i.e., from 28.07.2004 to 28.01.2005. Again, the suspension period was further extended from 28.07.2005 to 27.01.2006.

4. The case of the workman is that suspension period cannot be more than six months and the disciplinary action should be finalized and disposed of within six months. If not, it may extend further up to two months. In the present case, the workman was suspended for a period of more than eight months and he was not paid salary for the period from 01.06.2023 to 27.01.2004. Therefore, claiming Rs.72,680/- towards arrears of salary for the period from 01.06.2023 to 27.01.2004, Rs.28,800/- for the period from 28.01.2004 to 27.09.2004 and Rs.1,01,200/- towards subsistence allowance for the period from 28.09.2004 to 28.10.2005, in toto Rs. 2,02,680/- with interest @ 18% per annum, the workman filed a petition before the labour court.

5. The learned labour court, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, partly allowed the petition, by granting Rs.2,02,680/- to the workman. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The principal contention raised by the petitioner/ society in the present writ petition is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute of entitlement of the subsistence allowance of the workman and the Labour Court can only interpret an award or settlement on which the claim is based. Whereas in the present case, there is no award and therefore the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue upon raised by the workman by exercising power under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. For the said proposition, learned counsel for the society relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries υ. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another , (2022) 5 SCC 629 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held tha