IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Neelam Bhutani - Respondent
W.P. (Civil) No. 4149 of 2015
Decided On : 15-06-2018

Headnote:

LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33C(2) - COMPUTATION OF BENEFITS - ENTITLEMENT OF WORKMAN - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - INTERPRETATION OF AWARD - SCOPE OF SECTION 33C(2) - DISTINCTION FROM SECTION 33C(1) - EXECUTION POWERS OF LABOUR COURT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (AMENDMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1956 - SECTION 36A - INTERPRETATION OF AWARDS AND SETTLEMENTS - DISTINCTION FROM SECTION 33C(2) - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 20(2) - CORRESPONDENCE WITH SECTION 33C(2) - CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. V. P.S. RAJGOPALAN ETC. - SCOPE OF SECTION 33C(2) - DETERMINATION OF WORKMAN'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE BENEFIT - INTERPRETATION OF AWARD OR SETTLEMENT BY LABOUR COURT - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. GANESH RAZAK AND ANOTHER - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT UNDER SECTION 33C(2) - DISPUTE RELATING TO ENTITLEMENT - DISTINCTION FROM INCIDENTAL BENEFIT - KASTURI AND SONS (PRIVATE) LTD. V. SHRI N. SALIVATEESWARAN - ENQUIRY INTO CLAIM BY LABOUR COURT - ENFORCEABILITY OF DECISION UNDER SECTION 33(1) - AMBICA MILLS CO. LTD. V. SHRI S.B. BHATT - SCOPE OF QUESTIONS INCIDENTAL TO CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 15 OF PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - PIARA LAL V. LT. GOVERNOR AND OTHERS - BENEFITS CLAIMABLE UNDER SECTION 33C(2) - INCREMENTS, DA, AND REVISION IN PAY SCALES.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Limited, challenged the order of the Labour Court of the POLC-XI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, which allowed the respondent/work woman Ms. Neelam Bhutani's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for compliance of the award dated 22.01.2010 in LIR No. 762/06 (Old ID No. 220/02) passed by the Labour Court XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, directing the management to reinstate the work woman back on duty along with full back wages and continuity of services. The respondent claimed entitlement to increment of 10% for every year in her total salary, taking her basic salary to be Rs. 10,850/-, as part of back wages, and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date 16.06.2010 till the date of actual payment of Rs. 9,73,310/-. The petitioner contended that the Labour Court erred in deciding the claims for house rent allowance, leave travel concession, medical reimbursement, and increment without proving the value of the same or getting it proved on record that the respondent had undertaken any travel or incurred medical expenses. The petitioner also argued that the respondent was not entitled to increment as a matter of right and that the Labour Court glossed over the requirement to determine the value of the housing facilities and medical attendance availed by the respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to determine the workman's right to receive a benefit even if disputed by the management and that the Labour Court could interpret the award or settlement on which the workman based his/her claim. The court distinguished Section 33C(2) from Section 33C(1) and held that the scope of Section 33C(2) was wider and could include claims not based on settlements, awards, or made under the provisions of Chapter VA. The court also held that the Labour Court could interpret the award or settlement for the purpose of making the necessary determination under Section 33C(2). However, the court set aside the Labour Court's order granting LTC and medical reimbursement to the respondent without adjudication of her entitlement thereto and remanded the matter to the Labour Commissioner for determination of the claims.

Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to determine the workman's right to receive a benefit even if disputed by the management? 2. Whether the Labour Court could interpret the award or settlement on which the workman based his/her claim? 3. Whether Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, could include claims not based on settlements, awards, or made under the provisions of Chapter VA? 4. Whether the Labour Court could interpret the award or settlement for the purpose of making the necessary determination under Section 33C(2)? 5. Whether the Labour Court erred in granting LTC and medical reimbursement to the respondent without adjudication of her entitlement thereto?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to determine the workman's right to receive a benefit even if disputed by the management. 2. Yes, the Labour Court could interpret the award or settlement on which the workman based his/her claim. 3. Yes, Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, could include claims not based on settlements, awards, or made under the provisions of Chapter VA. 4. Yes, the Labour Court could interpret the award or settlement for the purpose of making the necessary determination under Section 33C(2). 5. Yes, the Labour Court erred in granting LTC and medical reimbursement to the respondent without adjudication of her entitlement thereto.

Final Decision: The court upheld the Labour Court's order to the extent that it permitted the prayer made for entitlement of full back wages, increment, and interest thereon, as well as the cost of litigation. However, the court set aside the Labour Court's order granting LTC and medical reimbursement to the respondent without adjudication of her entitlement thereto and remanded the matter to the Labour Commissioner for determination of the claims.