The remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is available to an employee to claim relief in respect of a benefit under an award made under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

JUDGMENT - 1. The petition arises out of an application under Section 330(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the petitioner to the Labour Court, Bombay. The petitioner was employed as Comptist on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/- and other allowances. He served for about II years and resigned on 6th December 1961 on medical grounds. His resignation was accepted and all his dues except gratuity were paid. He made the application alleging that as per the Cotton Textile Industry award he was entitled to be paid gratuity and requested the Labour Court to compute the amount of the gratuity payable to him. The Labour Court declined jurisdiction and hence this petition.

2. The contention of respondent No. I was that as the award was made under Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 and not under Industrial Disputes Act, Section 330(2) had no application. This argument was founded on the basic contention that the subject matters of Section 330(1) and 330(2) were the same i.e. both applied to cases of award, settlement or rights available under Chapter VA of the Act.

3. Mr. Narayanswami contends in the first instance that under Section 330(2) the money benefit could be computed only when such right is claimed under an award or settlement under the Act or by reason of the provisions of Chapter VA of the Act i.e. in other words the section is applicable only to cases falling within Section 33C(i). He relies on Laxmi Mills Co. Ltd v. Labour Court, Coimbatore, (1962) I Lab LJ 493.

4. This Court in Amarsinhji Mills Ltd v. M. N. Nagrashna, (1961) I Lab LJ 581 (Bom) held that "there is nothing in the language of Sub-section (I) which in any manner controls or affects the ambit and operation of Sub-section (2)" and the words any benefit" were construed to include a claim for compensation by a workman who is laid off. In Abdul Rahaman v. Kulkarni (1962) 2 Lab LJ 662 sitting with my brother Chandrachud J., I said while comparing Section 330 and Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950: "Sub-section (2) of Section 33 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 (I)". The use of the words "under the Act" are unfortunate as it must be admitted that we were dealing with the case of an employee who claimed a right only under the Act and the question whether an application could be made under this Sub-section for relief in respect of any other right was not considered by us. The words have crept in inadvertently and were not intended to lay down any limitation to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

5. In Civil Appeals Nos. 823-826 of 1962 Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan, D/- 19-4-1963: (AIR 1964 SC 747) the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the section. The claimants claimed Rs. 10/- per month as special allowance for operating the adding machine under the Shastry Award. It was contended that under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act only non-monetary benefits could be claimed and not a claim such as the one in the case. This contention was negatived. It was said:

"In our opinion, on fair and reasonable construction of Sub-section (2) it is clear that if a workmans right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may have to be determined by the Labour Court .......Thus our conclusion is that the scope of Section 33C(2) is wider than Section 33C(1) and cannot be wholly assimilated with it, though for obvious reasons, we do not propose to decide or indicate what additional cases would fall under Section 33C(2) which may not fall under Section 33C(1). In this connection, we may incidentally state that the observations made by this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Kharbanda, (1962) I Lab LJ 234 that Section 33C is a provision in the nature of execution should not be interprete

Click Here to Read the rest of this document