The jurisdiction of the labour court under S. 33c(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act extends to determining the amount payable to employees, even if the employer disputes the claim, and is not affected by the time-limit under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act.

CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions arise out of the common order of the labour court Habit, in Applications (LCH) Nos. 101, 138, 139 and 140 of 1965. Those applications were made under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the employees working in different departments of the town Municipal Council at Athani.

( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 973 of 1966, arising out of Application (LCH) No. 138 of 1965, 50 employees had claimed "washing allowance" and the cost of uniform dress. In the remaining three cases, the claims of the employees were for overtime wages and for wages for work done on weekly offdays.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-municipal council resisted all three claims of the employees. The labour court disallowed the claim for cost of the uniform for the employees, but directed the municipal council to supply the uniform to those 50 employees. Their claim for "washing allowance" was allowed in full. In the three remaining cases, the claims of employees for overtime wages and for wages for work done on weekly offdays, were allowed and the petitioner-municipal council was directed to pay several amounts to those employees.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the decision of the labour court, the municipal council has filed these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution.

( 5 ) SRI V. S. Gunjal, learned council for the petitioner, challenged the decision of the labour court on the following grounds :

(i) The labour court has no jurisdiction under S. 33c (2) to adjudicate on the disputed claims of the employees. (ii) The jurisdiction of the labour court to deal with claims for overtime wages and wages for work done on weekly offdays, has been barred under S. 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act. (iii) The labour court could not entertain the claims barred by time. (iv) The labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain claims relating to overtime wages and wages for work done in weekly offdays during any period prior to the date of coming into operation of S. 33c. (v) The labour court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim for "washing allowance. " (vi) The labour court erred in computing the several amounts payable to different groups of employees, in the absence of any issue and in the absence of evidence in that behalf.

( 6 ) IT is convenient to take up first the last of the above grounds. In Application (LCH) No. 101 of 1965, the parties field a joint memorandum stating that the amounts to which the employee was entitled was Rs. 8,342,32. Hence, the question of determining the amount payable to that employee did not arise in that case. In the three remaining applications, it is true that three was no issue regarding the amounts payable to the employees. Copies of objections filed before the labour court by the municipal council, have not been produced before us. It is not shown that the municipal council had disputed the correctness of several amounts claimed by those employees. In the absence of such objections there was no need for the labour court to frame any issue regarding such amounts. It is not shown that the municipal council had urged before the labour court that such issues should be framed. A certified copy of the order sheet of the labour court has been produced by Sri Gunjal. The entry dated 5 November, 1965 therein states that parties declined to lead evidence and were content merely to submit arguments on the basis of the material on record.

( 7 ) IN those circumstances, we do not see how the municipal council can have any grievance about determination by the labour court of several amounts payable to different sets of employees.

( 8 ) EMPLOYMENT under a local authority is specified as item 6 in part I of the schedule to the minimum Wages Act, 1948, and hence constitutes a "scheduled employment" as defined in S. 2 (g) of that Act. It was not disputed that the several employees had done overtime work and had worked on certain weekly offdays, and were entitled to extra wages therefor u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document