Back
1977 Supreme(Pat) 122
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.P.Sinha and Uday Sinha JJ.
Jharia Fire Bricks And Pottery Work (Pvt.) Ltd.
Versus
Sri Bhrigo Nath Sharma
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 304 of 1976 ;
Decided On : JULY 21, 1977
The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by heirs or assignees of deceased workmen for quantification of money value of benefits.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 33-C - RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE FROM AN EMPLOYER - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - APPLICATION BY HEIR OR ASSIGNEE OF DECEASED WORKMAN - INTERPRETATION OF SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2) - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS AND COMPUTATION OF BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company, challenged the order of the Labour Court directing it to pay Rs. 19,487.54 to the respondent, the son of a deceased workman. The company contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the sum payable to the respondent since he was not the workman himself and that the claim of the respondent was only for Rs. 16,451.49, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to order payment of Rs. 19,487.54.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the application required quantification of the money value which the workman was entitled to receive. The court interpreted sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33-C and held that the distinctive feature in the two sub-sections lies in the fact whether the money or the benefit claimed by the applicant had been computed or not. If it has been computed already, the application must lie to the appropriate Government in terms of sub-s. (1) of Section 33-C of the Act for realization of the sum-due. But if it requires adjudication of the right or computation of money or benefits capable of being computed in terms of money, the application must lie in terms of S. 33-C (2) of the Act before a Labour Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the sum payable to the respondent, who was the son of the deceased workman? 2. Whether the claim of the respondent was only for Rs. 16,451.49, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to order payment of Rs. 19,487.54?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the application required quantification of the money value which the workman was entitled to receive. The court interpreted sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33-C and held that the distinctive feature in the two sub-sections lies in the fact whether the money or the benefit claimed by the applicant had been computed or not. If it has been computed already, the application must lie to the appropriate Government in terms of sub-s. (1) of Section 33-C of the Act for realization of the sum-due. But if it requires adjudication of the right or computation of money or benefits capable of being computed in terms of money, the application must lie in terms of S. 33-C (2) of the Act before a Labour Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition filed by the company and upheld the order of the Labour Court directing the company to pay Rs. 16,451.49 to the respondent.
UDAY SINHA, J.
1. .This is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner (hereinafter called the Company) for quashing the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, dated 10-10-1975 (Annex. 4) whereby the Company was directed to pay Rupees 19,487.54 to respondent No. 1. The present application arises in the following circumstances :
2. One Harinandan Sharma, father of respondent No. 1 was a workman in the factory of the Company. He was taken ill of consumption in 1956 and continued to be afflicted of the malady for considerable length of time. His period of absence was reckoned as on leave till 6-1-1960 by the Company. As the workman was unable to join his duties even thereafter, his services were terminated by the Company. That led to an industrial dispute. The matter relating to the termination of the employment of Harinandan Sharma was subject-matter of Reference No. 3 of 1963. The reference under S. 10 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to a conclusion on 1-8-1963 by an order of the Labour Court which directed reinstatement of Harinandan Sharma with consequential benefits. The Company, however, did not take it lying down. A writ application was filed by the Company before this Court for quashing the order of the Labour Court which came up for consideration in M. J. C. No. 813 of 1963. The writ application filed by the Company was dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 25-2-1966.* The Company pursued the matter further. An application was filed before this Court for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. The application for grant of certificate was also rejected by this Court on 25-8-1967 and was not pursued any further. Although the Company was worsened before the Judicial Courts and Tribunals, it managed to resist reinstatement of the workman till December, 1967. On 23-12-1967 Harinandan Sharma never reported for duty and, therefore, the Company could not reinstate him. This position has been contested by respondent No. 1 Harinandan Sharma having failed in his efforts to enjoy the fruits awarded to him by the Labour Court, respondent No. 1 his son filed an application before the Labour Court under S. 33-C (2) of the Act. The application was contested by the Company. The matter dragged on for several years and was ultimately brought to a conclusion by an ex parte order dated 10-10-1975 whereby the Labour Court held that a sum of Rs. 19,487.54 was due to the respondent against the Management. The Company being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court has, therefore, filed the present application.
3. Two points have been urged in support of the rule issued in this case. The points urged were as follows:
(i) The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the sum payable to respondent No. 1 because he was only the son of the workman and not the workman himself.
(ii) The claim of respondent No. 1 being only for Rs. 16.451-49, the Labour Court had no jurisdticion to order payment of Rs. 19,487.54.
4. The really serious question for consideration in the present application is the first submission. The contention is that the respondent being an heir of the deceased workman should have applied to the State Government in terms of S. 33-C (1) and not to the Labour Court in terms of S. 33-C (2) of the Act. According to Mr. Rajgarhia, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief, which it did by Annex. 4. Sections 33-C (1) and 33-C (2) of the Act are in the following terms:
"33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Cha. V-A, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government
