Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bijayesh Mukherji
BENGAL BUS SYNDICATE - Appellant
Versus
M. K. ROY - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 110 Of 1965
Decided On : JUNE 29, 1966
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33-C(2) - COMPUTATION OF MONETARY BENEFITS - SCOPE - FORM Q/2 - NON-USE - EFFECT - SECTION 36-A - INVOCATION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Bengal Bus Syndicate defied an industrial tribunal's award directing the reinstatement of a starter, Chandra Kant Misra, and the payment of back dues. The State Government specified a labor court to compute the monetary benefits payable to Chandra Kant under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labor court computed the benefits, including back wages, bonus, and compensation. The Syndicate challenged the computation, arguing that Chandra Kant did not use the prescribed form Q/2 in his application, that the computation was outside the scope of Section 33-C(2), and that the failure to invoke Section 36-A was fatal to Chandra Kant's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the Syndicate's arguments. It held that the non-use of form Q/2 did not deprive Chandra Kant of his right to relief under Section 33-C(2) because the application contained all the material particulars required by the form. The court also held that the computation of monetary benefits was within the scope of Section 33-C(2) and that the failure to invoke Section 36-A was not fatal to Chandra Kant's case because there was no doubt or difficulty in the case that required the State Government's intervention.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-use of form Q/2 deprived Chandra Kant of his right to relief under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the computation of monetary benefits was outside the scope of Section 33-C(2)? 3. Whether the failure to invoke Section 36-A was fatal to Chandra Kant's case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the non-use of form Q/2 did not deprive Chandra Kant of his right to relief under Section 33-C(2) because the application contained all the material particulars required by the form. The court reasoned that form Q/2 was merely an example provided for convenience and that not using it simpliciter could not deprive the workman of his right under the main enactment. 2. The court held that the computation of monetary benefits was within the scope of Section 33-C(2). The court relied on Supreme Court decisions holding that the monetary value of the benefit of reinstatement is to be computed by taking into account various matters, such as the terms and conditions of employment, the tenure of service, the possibility of termination of the employment, and the employer's ceasing to exist. 3. The court held that the failure to invoke Section 36-A was not fatal to Chandra Kant's case because there was no doubt or difficulty in the case that required the State Government's intervention.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Syndicate's rule and upheld the labor court's computation of monetary benefits payable to Chandra Kant.
( 1 ) BY this rule obtained under Article 227 of the Constitution, Messrs. Bengal Bus Syndicate seeks reversal of the decision dated September 30, 1964, of a labour Court here, computing under S, 33-C, Sub-section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947, the monetary benefits payable by the Syndicate to its quondam employee, (a starter), Chandra Kant Misra, opposite party No. 2, as under:
Rs .
1. Back wages for 18 months from February 1, 1961 to mid-August 1962 at Rs. 100 a month 1,850. 00
2. Bonus for 1961 100. 00
3. Compensation for 10 years with bonus of Rs. 100 a year 13,000. 00
Total 14,950. 00
( 2 ) THE preliminary facts leading to such computation are not in the realm of dispute. On April 30, 1962, an industrial tribunal here recorded an award directing the Syndicate (i) to reinstate Chandra Kant to his former job, with continuity of service, and (ii) to pay him all back dues for the period of his forced unemployment within one month from the publication of the award. The award was published in the Calcutta Gazette dated July 19, 1962. See Part 1 thereof at pp. 2084-2090. The Syndicate defied the award. The State Government, therefore, specified, under Section 33-C, Sub-section 2, again, this particular labour Court as the Court for computing in terms of money, the benefit receivable by Chandra Kant, in pursuance of the award: vide the relevant Government order dated February 29. 1964, with an assortment of various figures and alphabets as its number. This is how the labour Court came to be seized of the matter.
( 3 ) MR. Arun Kumar Dutt, appearing in support of the rule, addresses me on three points. First: Chandra Kant did not press into service the statutory form Q/2 in making the application he did under Section 33-C, Sub-section 2. By not having done what he should have done, he has placed himself outside the statute. Second: computation of the benefit, in terms of money, as made, is outside the scope of Section 33-C. Sub-section 2. Third: failure to invoke Section 36-A means failure of the opposite party workman's case. I have been addressed on no oiher point.
( 4 ) THE first point has only to be stated in order to be rejected. Comparing a paradigm of the form Q/2 with the application Chandra Kant made before the labour Court, I find, all material particulars prescribed in the form are in the application. And still it will go down as an ineffective one! In a judicial tribunal form yields in favour of substance, and not vice versa.
( 5 ) MR. Dutl, however, will not allow me to leave the matter here. He has been good enough to cite two cases, the first of which is that well-known decision of a Full Bench of this Court: Jatindra Nath De v. Jetu Mahato, (1946) 50 Cal WN 502: (AIR 1946 Cal 339), laying down that a co-sharer landlord could avail himself of his right of pre-emption under the old Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act, even after the new Section 26-F had come into force, by virtue of the 1938 Amendment, conferring such right to co-sharer tenants only, if the transfer was before the amendment. What that has got to do with form Q/2 defeats me. This statutory form, for all I see, does not confer any right on the workman. Section 33-C, Sub-section 2, does. The form is there merely as an example, it is a mere form given for convenience' sake offering a little guidance to the workman as to what his application under Rule 74, Sub-rule 3, of the Industrial Disputes Rules should contain, if he is minded to apply for relief on specification of a labour Court by the State Government under Section 33-C, Sub-section 2. That being so, not using the form simpliciter cannot deprive the workman of his right he has under the main enactment: Section 33-C, Sub-section 2, and also under the statutory instrument which is here Rule 74, Sub-rule 3; the more so, when all the material particulars mentioned in the form are to be found in Chandra Kant's application under Rule 74, Sub-rule 3, o
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
