A. P. RAVANI, M. P. THAKKAR, J.

( 1 ) ENTER through the door marked 10 (1) and not through the door marked 33c says the Labour Court whilst rejecting the recovery application made by an employee who complains of that though he is in fact doing the work (for which a higher pay scale is agreed upon) he is not paid on that basis by the employer. It is common ground that the very Labour Court would have jurisdiction if a reference was made under sec. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (I. D. Act) inasmuch as the number of employees is less than 100 It is however the view of the Labour Court that it cannot do so in exercise of powers under sec. 33c (2) in the absence of a reference under sec. 10 (1 ). Can the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under sec. 33 of the I. D. Act be ousted merely by denying that he is doingsuch work ? Can he be obliged to apply to the State Government to make a reference under sec. 10 (1) of the I. D. Act on the premise that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended ? Is the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under sec 33c ousted on any of the following grounds ?: (1) It involves creation of a new right and not enforcement of an existing right and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document