The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to execute a Civil Court decree under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - The contention of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent, Md. Sarfuddin ahmed, since deceased, was an employee under the petitioner no. 1 Company. The said employee was charge sheeted on 11th May, 1973 on allegations of misconduct and was suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings against him. Pursuant to departmental proceedings, the employee was dismissed from service by a letter dated 12th October, 1974. During pendency of the inquiry, the employee approached the Civil Court in Title Suit 95 of 1973 against the Company praying for a decree for declaration and injunction against the charge sheet and the suspension order issued by the Company. The suit was decreed exparte by the learned Civil Court by an order dated 8th September, 1981 whereby the employee was granted decree in respect of his seniority, grade of pay and suspension. It was held that the employee was entitled to seniority as per his length of service and the tripartite agreement and also pay protection to the grade he was officiating immediately before his suspension. The suspension was declared illegal, invalid and inoperative and the Company was restrained from initiating any inquiry or proceeding against the employee. The Company filed a Miscellaneous Case before the said Court for setting aside the exparte decree and restoration of the title suit but the same was dismissed for default on 25th March, 1982. The employee, thereafter, approached the Learned Second Labour Court West Bengal in an application under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 for computation of monetary benefit arising out of the exparte decree. Maintainability of the said application was challenged before the Labour Court by the petitioners and by the order impugned dated 25th June, 2007 the Learned Labour Court rejected the prayer of the petitioners and held that the case was maintainable before the said Court.

2. During pendency of the matter before the Labour Court, the employee Md. Sarfuddin ahmed expired on 5th September, 2002 and the private respondents being his legal heirs, were substituted in his place.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure which demonstrates that a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. Section 39 lays down circumstances when the decree can be sent for execution to another Court. Learned counsel submits that section 11B of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 inserted by way of an amendment applicable to the State of West Bengal demonstrates that a Labour Court shall have the power of a Civil Court to execute its own award as a decree of a Civil Court and also to execute any settlement as defined in clause (p) of section 2 as a decree. Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to adjudicate industrial disputes relating to matters specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this act. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to act as an executing Court for execution of the decree granted by the Civil Court, under section 33C (2) of the 1947 act. The employee ought to have initiated an execution proceeding before the Civil Court which passed the exparte order. The Labour Court cannot encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in exercise of power under section 33C (2) of the 1947 act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v/s. Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur reported in aIR 1956, Supreme Court 231, Bombay Gas Company, Ltd. v/s. Gopal Bhiva and Others reported in (1963) 2 LLJ 608, Myurdhwaj Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. v/s. Presiding Officer, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal and Others reported in (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 39 and Sandur Mang