Point of Law: Section 33(C) of I.D Act is reproduced recovery of money due from an employer.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“The petitioner in the circumstances stated above, humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other writ or order and quash the impugned order dated 27.8.2009 vide Annexure-‘E’ to this writ petition passed in Application No.1/2004 by the Hon’ble II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore”.

2. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing of silk fabrics from the year 1996. On 24.07.2002, a domestic enquiry was held in which the respondent was found guilty of misconduct and his services came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2003. The respondent along with four others filed an application No.1/2004 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming full wages from the date of dismissal till filing of the application. The objections were filed.

3. During the pendency of the application, four workmen except the respondent settled their claim with the petitioner vide a settlement agreement dated 10.04.2008. As such application No.1/2004 referred to supra continued only in respect of respondent No.1-workman is concerned. After recording evidence, and hearing arguments, the Labour Court vide its order dated 27.08.2009 allowed the application. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner -employer is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri.K.R.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:

4.1. The disputes as regards four other workmen having been settled vide Settlement Deed dated 10.04.2008 and the Union also having agreed to the said settlement, the respondent also ought to have agreed to the same and only in the event of the petitioner refusing employment, then the respondent would be justified in demanding full wages. The petitioner had never prevented the respondent from reporting to work. Infact, the respondent had also offered similar terms as that offered to other workmen for the purpose of settlement. It is the respondent who has not agreed to the settlement and without working with an intention of earning full wages has refused the settlement and continued the proceedings.

4.2. At no point of time, had the respondent reported to work or the petitioner refused employment, which has not been considered by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has exceeded its powers vested in it under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act and has passed the impugned order without properly understanding the position of law. The decision which had been referred to and relied upon by the Labour Court has not been properly understood by the Labour Court resulting in the impugned award. The law applied not being proper, the impugned order is required to be set aside.

4.3. A common grievance having been raised under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act, once the other workman had agreed for a settlement, what remains was an individual dispute of the respondent and without a reference being made under Section 10(4)(a) of the Act, a dispute of an individual workman could not have been considered by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.

4.4. The proceedings under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act would not apply to an individual workman. It is only, if a reference order was made as regards the disputes raised after conciliation proceedings having failed that the aspect of backwages could be considered insofar as lone workman-respondent is concerned.

4.5. He relies upon the following decisions:

4.6. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. C.V. Venkataravana, WP No.24649/2016, dated 16.04.2021

23. Analysis of the factual aspects of the case that respondent-workman was dismissed from service and the management in not invoking Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act does not give any right to the respondent-workman to submit application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act. Without compliance to the ingredients of the said provision, ap