1996 Supreme(Del) 965

High Court Of Delhi
WESTON ELECTRONICS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 12/12/1996

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33-C(1) - SCOPE OF POWER OF APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT - ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES - HELD, APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES BETWEEN WORKMEN AND MANAGEMENT - APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY EXAMINE OBJECTIONS OF MANAGEMENT TO WORKMEN'S CLAIM TO FORM PRIMA FACIE OPINION WHETHER OBJECTIONS ARE PERVERSE, FRIVOLOUS OR MALAFIDE TAKEN WITH A VIEW TO DEPRIVE WORKMAN OF MONEY DUE TO HIM.

Fact of the Case:

WORKMEN OF VARIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS OF M/S WESTON ELECTRONICS LTD. WERE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE COMPANY DUE TO ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL REASONS. SOME WORKMEN REPORTED FOR DUTY AT THE NEWLY ASSIGNED PLACES, SOME SETTLED WITH THE COMPANY EXPRESSING UNWILLINGNESS TO SERVE, AND SOME RESORTED TO DEMONSTRATIONS AND ILLEGAL STRIKE. THE COMPANY TOOK ACTION AGAINST THE WORKMEN FOR THEIR NON-JOINING AT THE ASSIGNED PLACES OF DUTY. THE UNION WROTE TO THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER OBJECTING TO THE TRANSFER OF WORKERS AND CLAIMING THAT THE TRANSFERS WERE MADE WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION TO DISRUPT THE UNION. A MEETING WAS HELD WITH THE LABOUR MINISTER, WHERE THE MANAGEMENT AGREED TO PUT WORKMEN AT MOST AT TWO UNITS. THE UNION, HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE TO THIS SUGGESTION. THE MANAGEMENT THEN ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE WORKMEN THAT THEY HAD ABANDONED THEIR SERVICES WITH THE ORGANIZATION. THE UNION WROTE TO THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER ALLEGING ILLEGAL LOCKOUT, ILLEGAL AND MALAFIDE TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES, AND DEMANDING WAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 33-C OF THE ACT. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER'S REPORT SHOWED THAT THE WORKMEN HAD REPORTED FOR DUTY AT TWO SITES AND THE MANAGEMENT WAS WILLING TO TAKE THEM ON DUTY, BUT THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO GIVE JOINING REPORTS. THE MANAGEMENT SENT A REPLY TO THE UNION STATING THAT SECTION 33-C(1) OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICABILITY SINCE THE WORKERS HAVE NOT BEEN RETRENCHED AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25-N READ WITH SECTION 2(OO) ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE UNION DEMANDED WAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 33-C(1) FOR THE PERIOD FROM 8TH JUNE, 1994 TO 31ST JULY, 1994. THE IMPUGNED RECOVERY CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED STATING THAT RS. 2,20,954/- WAS PAYABLE BY THE COMPANY TO 71 WORKMEN FOR 22 DAYS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 1994 AND FOR FULL MONTH OF JULY, 1994 UNDER SECTION 33-C(1) OF THE ACT.

Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES BETWEEN WORKMEN AND MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 33-C(1) OF THE ACT. THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY EXAMINE OBJECTIONS OF MANAGEMENT TO WORKMEN'S CLAIM TO FORM PRIMA FACIE OPINION WHETHER OBJECTIONS ARE PERVERSE, FRIVOLOUS OR MALAFIDE TAKEN WITH A VIEW TO DEPRIVE WORKMAN OF MONEY DUE TO HIM.

Issues: WHETHER THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES BETWEEN WORKMEN AND MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 33-C(1) OF THE ACT.

Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES BETWEEN WORKMEN AND MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 33-C(1) OF THE ACT. THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY EXAMINE OBJECTIONS OF MANAGEMENT TO WORKMEN'S CLAIM TO FORM PRIMA FACIE OPINION WHETHER OBJECTIONS ARE PERVERSE, FRIVOLOUS OR MALAFIDE TAKEN WITH A VIEW TO DEPRIVE WORKMAN OF MONEY DUE TO HIM. THIS IS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 33-C(1) ARE IN THE NATURE OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL MODE OF SPEEDY RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE TO A WORKMAN FROM AN EMPLOYER UNDER A SETTLEMENT OR AN AWARD OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER V-A OR CHAPTER V-B. SECTION 33-C(1) DOES NOT VEST ANY POWER OF ADJUDICATION ON THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT EXCEPT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF EXAMINING THE FACTS TO FIND OUT WHETHER OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION OF THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYER SIMPLY WITH A VIEW TO OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE SAID SECTION AND DEPRIVE THE WORKMAN OF MONEY DUE TO HIM.

Final Decision: THE IMPUGNED RECOVERY CERTIFICATES WERE QUASHED. THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT WAS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE MATTERS AFRESH WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION.