The court upheld the entitlement of employees to wages and benefits under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and emphasized the importance of providing relevant documentary evidence to support claims.

JUDGMENT :

R.J. KOCHAR, J.

1. The Petitioners N.T.C. (SM) Ltd. are a Government Company registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act and is a subsidiary of NTC Ltd., New Delhi. The Respondents are the employees of the erstwhile Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. It was one of the 13 mills the management of which was taken over and vested with the NTC, New Delhi as the custodian under the Ordinance No. 10 of 1983, which was replaced by the Textile Undertaking (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983. Petitioners were appointed as the additional custodian for the aforesaid 13 Mills. The Respondents employees claim to continue in the employment of the petitioners even after the taking over of the management of the erstwhile company. It is an admitted fact that all of them were employed and working in the registered office of the company. The petitioners had disowned them and had denied the relationship of employer-employee. It would be relevant to mention at this stage itself that there was earlier one round of litigation on the question of employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondents employees upto the Supreme Court. This Court in Writ Petition No. 666 of 1986 had directed the petitioners to treat the respondents-employees as their employees and to pay them emoluments as would be admissible. The petitioners carried this judgment to the Supreme Court but their Special Leave Petition was dismissed on November 24, 1992. The issue of employer employee relationship was thus finally put at rest by the Supreme Court.

2. According to the. Respondent-employees, they reported for work but they were not assigned any work nor were they paid their wages. After correspondence the Respondents were constrained to once again knock the doors of the Courts to claim their wages, as the employees of the petitioners who were ready and willing to work were denied the work and also the wages. They filed the present application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and claimed wages from December 1, 1983 till July 1993 claiming to be entitled to the full emoluments during the said period.

3. The present respondents employees had computed their dues in separate annexures with the application individually also praying for other legal dues such as Bonus, Leave Encashment etc. as averred in the applications. It would be appropriate to clarify, at this stage itself that the petitioners had paid to the said employees wages from October 18, 1983 till November 30, 1983 and thereafter they were denied their lawful emoluments which they claim in the proceedings under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court.

4. The petitioners filed their written statement and disputed the entitlement and computation of the emoluments claimed by the said employees on various grounds including a ground of employer-employee relationship, which was already finally determined by the Supreme Court. As usual the petitioners had advanced number of untenable pleas to deny even the legitimate benefits of the employees. The petitioners emphatically denied that the said employees had any existing right to claim the money due/benefits from the petitioners. The only material plea taken by the petitioners was that all the employees were gainfully employed in the company viz. Dupont Sportswear Ltd. on and from November 8, 1987 onwards as shown in the Annexure-A to their written statement. The Annexure-A gives the total period of employment of the employees in the said company. It was therefore contended that the employees were not entitled to any wages and the benefits for the entire period during which they were gainfully employed in the aforesaid company. The petitioners therefore prayed for dismissal of the applications filed by the employees.

5. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The learned Judge of the Labour Court by his impugned judgment and order determined th