JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act").

2. The respondent No. 1 was working as Tongsman in the petitioner's steel industries. He was suspended pending enquiry by an order dated 9-12-1978. He was thereafter dismissed on 4-9-1979. He challenged his dismissal before the competent Labour Court and the order of dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of employment. The order of the Labour Court was finally confirmed by this Court.

3. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed the instant application under section 33-C(2) of the Act in which his main grievance was that he was not paid the wages of semi-skilled categories fixed under the notification in regard to the engineering industries under the Minimum Wages Act. The period of claim is from 1-1-1978 to 31-12-1982. According to him, the total difference payable to him under the Minimum Wages Notification for semi-skilled category and his existing wages which are paid at the rate of Rs. 50/ per month was Rs. 20,393.38 out of which he was already paid an amount of Rs. 9,979.93. Thus the actual difference in wages payable to him was Rs. 10,413.45. He also made a claim of encashment of leave with wages under the provisions of the Factories Act which was granted to him because of his forced unemployment by reason of the order of dismissal. He further claimed bonus at the rate of 20% under the Payment of Bonus Act for four years from 1978 to 1981. He calculated the claim on account of leave encashment at Rs 1,692.80 and the amount of bonus for the aforesaid four years at Rs. 3,058/-. He thus made a total claim against the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 15,164.25 in his claim petition. The petitioner filed its written statement and denied the claim made by the respondent No. 1. In particular it was claimed that the petitioner did not belong to semi-skilled category and the dispute whether he belonged to semi-skilled category or un-skilled category could not be adjudicated by the learned Labour Court in his limited jurisdiction under section 33-C(2) of the Act.

The parties led evidence in the instant proceedings. The learned Labour Court on the basis of the evidence on record held that the categories were fixed by the Minimum Wages Notification itself and the only question which the Labour Court had to see was whether by reason of duties performed by the respondent No. 1 he belonged to semi-skilled category or the unskilled category. The learned labour Court thus held that the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was maintainable and he had jurisdiction to decide the same. As regards the question whether by reason of the duties performed by the respondent No. 1 he belonged to semi-skilled category or the unskilled category the learned Labour Court held in favour of the respondent No. 1 holding that he belonged to the semi-skilled category. The learned Labour Court also held on merits that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to difference in the minimum rate of wages fixed for the semi skilled category and the existing wages paid to the respondent No. 1. He also held that he was entitled to encashment of leave and bonus. The learned Labour Court noticed that the respondent No. 1 has not given allowance for Rs. 2,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner in the High Court and which he had withdrawn. He thus held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to an amount of Rs 13,464 on account of the claims made by him in the instant claim petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.

5. The first question raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since there is a dispute of categorisation of employees the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the same under his limited jurisdiction under section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is clear from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document