Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GAURANG KANTH, J.
M/s Madan Trading Co.Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2846 of 2005 and C.M. No. 2051 of 2005
Decided on : 06-12-2022
Industrial Disputes Act - Retrenchment - Section 25N - Recovery order and notice issued by Respondent no.2 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25N, Section 33-C(1) - The court analyzed the scope of Section 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act and examined the impugned order and notice to determine whether the appropriate government judiciously exercised the power vested in it under Section 33-C(1) of the ID Act.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute originated from a complaint filed by the workmen of the Petitioner alleging non-payment of minimum wages and illegal termination of services. The Labour officer and Labour inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and a settlement was reached for payment of earned wages to 42 workers. The impugned order and notice were issued for recovery of wages for a period not covered by the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appropriate government, Respondent no.2, misinterpreted the requirement under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned order and notice were deemed illegal, perverse, and arbitrary. The court quashed the impugned order and notice, allowing the parties to seek remedy by raising an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether Respondent no.2 was justified in invoking the executory mechanism under Section 33C(1) for issuing a recovery order in the absence of any award or settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The appropriate government should act only as an executory court and leave adjudication to the tribunal/labour court. The absence of a pre-determined right in favor of the workmen precluded the issuance of the recovery order. The appropriate government misconstrued the requirement under Section 33-C(1) of the act.
Final Decision: The present petition was allowed, and the impugned order and notice were quashed/set aside. The parties were granted the liberty to seek their remedy by raising an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.
JUDGMENT :
GAURANG KANTH, J
1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the (i) Recovery order dated 23.09.2004 (“the impugned order”) and (ii) notice dated 12.10.2004 (“the impugned notice”), both issued by Respondent no.2.
2. By virtue of the impugned order, Respondent No.2 concluded that the Petitioner had retrenched 55 workmen of Respondent No.4/Union in violation of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “I.D. Act”). Hence in view of the same, Respondent No.2 directed Respondent No.3 to recover from the Petitioner the earned wages accrued to these 55 workmen for the period from 14.04.2004 to 31.05.2004 as land revenue arrears.
3. Vide the impugned notice, Respondent no.2 directed the Petitioner to appear before him on 20.10.2004 for discussing about the nonpayment of balance wages of Rs.5,67,000/- to the 54 workers of Respondent No.4/Union for the period from 01.06.2004 to 31.08.2004. The allegation against the Petitioner was that they retrenched these workmen in violation of Section 25-N of the I.D. Act.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER
4. The present dispute originates from the complaint filed by the workmen of the Petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, GNCTD, inter alia, alleging the non-payment of minimum wages by the Petitioner. During the pendency of the aforesaid dispute, the Petitioner allegedly terminated the services of 55 workmen.
5. Respondent No. 4/Union filed a complaint dated 13.04.2004 to the Labour Commissioner alleging illegal termination of services and nonpayment of earned wages to these 55 workmen for the period from period 01.03.2004 to 13.04.2004.
6. Acting upon the afore-stated complaint, the Labour officer and Labour inspector from the office of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 along with the representative of Respondent no.4/Union visited the premises of the petitioner. During the said visit, a Memorandum dated 15.04.2004 was signed by the parties. As per the said Memorandum, the Petitioner, agreed to pay earned wages to 42 workers for the period 01.03.2004 to 13.04.2004 as per the attendance marked and maintained by the office of the Petitioner. Regarding the rest of the 7 employees, it was decided that the payment will be made after due verification of the record of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 communicated the aforesaid settlement to Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 19.04.2004. It was further stated in the said letter dated 19.04.2004 that Respondent No.4/Union can file a claim for conciliation in case the workmen are still aggrieved by the illegal termination at the hands of the petitioner.
7. Respondent no. 4 filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer alleging the illegal termination of 55 workmen. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 27.04.2004 was issued by the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Conciliation officer along with the complaint filed by Respondent No.4/Union to the Petitioner and asked them to file written explanation by 07.05.2004. It is the case of the Petitioner that they responded to the show cause notice dated 27.04.2004, whereas it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner failed to respond to the said show cause notice.
8. Respondent No.2, vide the impugned order dated 23.09.2004, directed the Respondent No.3 to recover the earned wages accrued to the 55 workmen for the period from 14.04.2004 to 31.05.2004 from the Petitioner as land revenue arrears. The Impugned order, inter alia, reads as follows:
The appropriate government should act only as an executory court and leave adjudication to the tribunal/labour court. The absence of a pre-determined right in favor of the workmen precluded the issua....
The appropriate government lacks jurisdiction under Section 33C(1) to issue recovery orders without prior adjudication of the workers' claims, emphasizing that such claims must arise from recognized ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when the claim....
Section 33C(2) is more comprehensive than Section 33C(1). Section 33C(2) applies not only to cases of settlement or award or cases under Chapter VA of the Act, but to other cases as well. By a proces....
The authority's order under Section 33-C(1) was valid as the employer failed to dispute the existence of a relevant settlement, maintaining wage parity between contractual and regular employees in li....
Section 33(C)(1) of I.D.Act deals with situation where money is due to a workman under a settlement or an award.
Under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate claims without prior recognition of entitlement; it can only enforce existing rights.
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
