ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard counsel.

2. By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2005 passed by respondent No.2, the Labour Court, Mumbai, awarding the respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 14,10,000/- by allowing his application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') .

3. According to respondent No. 1 (for short the respondent), his services were terminated by the petitioner in May, 1989. The petitioner disputed this and contended that the services of the respondent were not terminated but he abandoned the service in May, 1999. The respondent approached the Labour Commissioner for conciliation. In the conciliation proceedings he did not press the claim for reinstatement in service but claimed Rs. 2 lakhs as arrears of commission allegedly payable to him. The Conciliation Officer recorded that the respondent had refused to join the duties but had claimed Rs. 2 lakhs as commission and therefore the matter could not be settled. The Conciliation Officer has accordingly directed the respondent to approach the appropriate court for resolution of the dispute. The respondent thereafter filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Act claiming Rs. 16,60,000/- as arrears of commission due and payable to him for the period from 1990 to 1999. By its judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2005 the Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 14,10,000/- by way of commission. That judgment is impugned in this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent himself had initially approached the Labour Commissioner (Conciliation Officer)' for reinstatement. Before the Conciliation Officer the respondent refused to rejoin the service which was offered by the petitioner but demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs by way of arrears of commission. He was therefore advised to approach the appropriate court. Thereafter the respondent made a huge claim of Rs. 14,16,000/- by way of commission, inconsistent with his claim before the Conciliation Officer where he had firstly claimed reinstatement, then claimed Rs. 2 lakhs by way of commission. Thus the case of respondent was inconsistent and the Labour Court ought not to have granted any relief to the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the claim made by respondent of Rs. 16,60,000/- was untenable. The petitioner had never agreed to pay any commission to the respondent. The fact that the respondent was making a claim of commission for the period from the year 1990 to 1999 shows that no commission was never paid to him during this particular period, that is during the entire period of employment. He further submitted that the petitioner had denied the claim of the respondent and he was not entitled to make a claim in an application under section 33C(2) of the Act. According to him section 33C(2) of the Act applies only in respect of claims which were admitted or adjudicated upon in the past. In this connection he relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Company vs. Gopal Bhiva and ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 752, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and anr., reported in I 995( I) CLR 170 and State of U.P. and anr. vs. Brijpal Singh, reported in CD} 2005 SC 705.

6. In Bombay Gas Co. (supra) the Supreme Court held that the proceedings contemplated by section 33C(2) are analogous to execution proceedings and in those proceedings it is open to the Labour Court to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by an industrial employee, while interpreting the award. In para 7 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed:

"The proceedings contemplated by section 33C(2) are, in many cases, analogous to execution proceedings, and the Labour Court which is called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by an industrial employee is, in such cases, in the position of an executing court; like the executing court in execution proceed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document