JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) Petitioner No. 1 in this case is an employee of the Victoria Lamp Works, at Bombay. Petitioner No. 2 is the Union of which petitioner No. 1 is a member. Alleging that he was in service for 11 years, and that at the time in question, i.e. on the 10th of November 1960, he was earning Rs. 2-8-0 a day, that by closure notive dated 10th October 1960, his services along with that of others were terminated from 10th October 1960, and no payment was made due to him under the provisions of S. 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, he made an application under S. 33-C (2) of the Act for determination of the amount due to him. This application was made to the aLabour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Opponent contested the application contending that the payments were already made and in any case the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Court framed two preliminary points for its decision as follows;

"(1) Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain these applications under S. 33-C(2) of I.F. Act?

(2) Whether the certificates as prayed for can be issued?"

(2) In support of the contention that the court had jurisdiction, the petitioners relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Shri Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. V. Nagrashana, 1961 (1) Lab LJ 581 (Bom). In that case the workers claiming sililar relief had made an application under the section and the court hald that the Labour Court would have jurisdiction under S. 33-C (2) of the Act, to determine the amount due.

The Labour Court disagreed with the view of this court and held that it had no jurisdiction, and that it could not issue a certificate. I is this order that is now being challenged before us.

(3) We must say at the out set that we have not been able to ascetain the process of thought by which the Court came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction, though the judgment is none too short. Mr. Phadke, however, has tried to support the judgment under review as best as he could. Mr. Phadke invited our attention to the observations of bhagawati J. In the case of S. S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. 1958 SCR 442 at p. 456: (AIR 1958 SC 12 at p. 17) which have been cited by the Labour court and argues that they support the conclusions of the Labour court theat S. 33-C(2) gives jurisdiction to the Labour Court to determine the money value of non-monetary benfits only and that it could be done on a reference to it by the appropriate Government. It is contended that this case was not cited before the Division Bench which decided (1961) 1 Lab LJ 581 (Bom). And therefore it is erroneously decided.

(4) Section 33-C is in parimateria with S. 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, which was considered by the Supreme Court. It is divided into two parts as is S. 20 Sub-section (1) enables a person to make an application to the Stat Government to issue a certificate for any money due to him under an award or order of a court established under the Act and it could than be recovered as arrears of revenue. Sub-section (2) enables a person to make an application for determining the money value of any right to which he is entitled to under the Act and on such determination it becomes enforceable in the manner provided under sub-section n(1). It is at once apparent that sub-section (1) affords a method of execution by which any amount due can be recovered and can have limited application and could be invoked only when the amount is actually determined by a proper tribunal. When it has yet to be determined resor must be had to sub-section (2) and after it is determined then application for ecovery could be made under sub-section (1).

(5) A few facts necessary to appreciate the observations of Bhagwati J. In 1958 SCR 442 at p. 456 : (AIR 1958 SC 12 at p. 17 ) need be stated. The appellant before the Supreme Court was discharged by the respondent, which order of discharged by the respondent, which order of disc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document