Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Lawrence Messy – Appellant
Versus
Diocese of Delhi – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8950 of 2014
Decided On : 11-09-2019
ID Act - Industrial Disputes - Section 33C(2) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a peon, claimed unpaid wages and superannuation benefits from the respondent, a church. The respondent contended that it was not an 'industry' and the claim was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court should have first addressed the issue of jurisdiction before examining the merits of the claim. The court held that the respondent was not an 'industry' and the claim was not maintainable.
Issues: The issues framed were whether the management was not an industry, whether the claimant was barred by limitation, and whether the workman was entitled to recover any amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the competence and authority of the Labour Court to adjudicate on the merits of the claim was entirely dependent on the Labour Court being possessed of jurisdiction to do so. The court also highlighted that the burden of proof lay on the petitioner to establish that the respondent was an 'industry' under the ID Act.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to reject the petitioner's application, as the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent was an 'industry' requiring the assertion to the contrary, as advanced by the respondent, meriting acceptance.
JUDGMENT :
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. The order, dated 30th August,2014, wherefrom the present writ petition emanates, adjudicated an application, preferred by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act").
2. Before proceeding further, it would be proper to set out, at the outset, Section 33C(1) and (2) of the ID Act, thus:
"33C. 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 [Chapter VA or Chapter VB] 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 for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer: Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months:
Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit."
3. In his application under Section 33C(2), the petitioner averred that:
(i) he had been appointed as a peon, in the grade of 110-5-150, in the office of the respondent, vide appointment letter dated 26th June, 1971, with effect from 1st July, 1971, and had been confirmed on the said post, vide letter dated 17th February, 1972.
(ii) his last drawn salary was Rs. 5,000/- per month.
(iii) he had performed his duties as best he could, and to the complete satisfaction of the respondent, and was never subject matter of any complaint in that regard.
(iv) vide circular dated 20th August, 1999, the respondent revised the salary of the various staff members working in different capacities in its organisation; however, the benefit of the said revision of salary was never extended to the petitioner, despite various requests and representations made by him.
(v) the health of the petitioner suddenly deteriorated on 20th June, 2000, whereafter he remained consistently in a poor state of health but continued to work, for the respondent, till 2008.
(vi) the services of the petitioner were suddenly terminated by the respondent, whereafter he remained unemployed.
Alleging, in the circumstances, that he had been illegally terminated from service and had not been paid wages or salary from May, 2000, the petitioner claimed that an amount of Rs. 8,84,584/- was due, to him, from the respondent, for the recovery of which he was entitled to maintain a claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that an award be made, in his favour, holding that he was entitled to superannuation benefits and full back wages from May, 2000 till the date of his retirement, with all consequential benefits along with costs.
4. In its reply, to the aforesaid statement of claim, of the petitioner, the respondent c
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
