Point of Law : Section 33C (1) and (2) of the I.D Act which are relevant for the purpose of this case read as Recovery of money due from an employer.

ORDER :

Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the direction of the Labour Court to pay compensation of Rs.2,97,120/-with interest at 6% per annum to the respondent, the employer has preferred the above petition.

3. The respondent was working as a driver in the petitioner’s organization. On 03.03.2004, during the course of his duty, the bus driven by him met with an accident on Bengaluru-Mangaluru route and he suffered injuries. The medical board issued certificate dated 10.01.2006 stating that due to the said injuries, the respondent cannot discharge his duty as driver.

4. Admittedly, based on such certificate the petitioner assigned the respondent alternate light work. The petitioner treated the respondent’s period of absence from March 2004 to October 2005 as on duty and paid full salary. Admittedly, the respondent filed MVC.No.1067/2004 claiming compensation. In that petition he was awarded compensation of Rs.48,728/- with interest. The petitioner satisfied the said award.

5. The respondent got issued notice Ex.A-7 to the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-with interest at 12% per annum under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘Act, 1923’) on the ground that he suffered disability during the course of employment. Then he preferred claim petition before the Labour Court Mangaluru under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-along with interest at 18% per annum and Silver Medal Allowance 50% per month from 01.04.2004 onwards along with 18% interest.

6. The petitioner contested the said claim on the ground that since respondent already received compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, he is not entitled to make further claim. It was further contended that since respondent did not perform the duty of driver, as per the Circular No.722/1997 he was not entitled to silver medal allowance. The petitioner also contested the application on the ground of maintainability without raising any industrial dispute.

7. The Labour Court by the impugned award Annexure-C dated 13.04.2016 allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.2,97,120/-with interest as aforesaid on the ground that the respondent can exercise his option to claim the compensation both under the Motor Vehicle Act and Workmen Compensation Act. The Labour Court awarded the silver medal allowance also with effect from 01.04.2004. The Labour Court did not consider the question of maintainability of the petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.

Submissions of Smt.Shwetha Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioner:

8. Section 33C (1) and (2) of the I.D.Act shall be read in an integrated and holistic manner. Section 33C (2) of the Act can be invoked only in relation to an award or the settlement contemplated under Section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act. As the respondent did not perform the duty of driver, after the accident he was not entitled to silver medal allowance.

9. In support of her submissions, she relies on the following judgments:

(i) National Building Construction Corporation Vs Pritam Singh Gill and Others, (1972) 2 SCC 1

(ii) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Ganesh Razak and Another, (1995) 1 SCC 235

(iii) State Bank of India Vs Ram Chandra Dubey and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 73

(iv) Kanhaiyalal Vishindas Gidwani Vs Arun Dattatray Mehta and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 78

(v) State of U.P and Another Vs Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 58

(vi) Pentakota Satyanarayana and Others Vs Pentakota Seetharatnam and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 67

(vii) National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Mastan and Another, (2006) 2 SCC 641

(viii) A.P.SRTC and Another Vs B.S.David Paul, (2006) 2 SCC 282

(ix) K.C.Skaria Vs Govt. of State of Kerala and Another, (2006) 2 SCC 285

(x) U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs Birendra Bhandari, (2006) 10 SCC 211

(xi) D.Krishnan and Another Vs Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill and Another, (2008) 7 SCC 22 Submissions of Sri V.S.Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent:

10. Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is