Point of Law: provision specifically provides that for computing the money value of a benefit accrued to the workman, the Labour Court can appoint the Commissioner for taking necessary evidence. Thus, the scope of Section 33C(2) is wider, than, the scope of Section 33C(1).

JUDGMENT :

1. Special Civil Application No.4696 of 2010 is filed under Articles 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as the “Labour Court”) in Recovery Application No.3 of 2006 whereby the Labour Court has ordered to pay medical bill, subsistence allowance and leave encashment of 184 days to the respondent. Whereas, Special Civil Application No.4697 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No.472 of 2006 whereby the Labour Court has granted relief of payment of provident fund amount lying at the time of death of the deceased employee of the Bank to the respondent.

2. Since the question of law involved in both these petitions is similar, they both have been tagged together. Hence, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Special Civil Application No.4696 of 2010 pertains to the order passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No.3 of 2006, whereas, the Special Civil Application No.4697 of 2010 pertains to the order passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No.472 of 2006.

4. The main contentions raised by the petitioner are that the husband of the respondent namely Ashokbhai D. Andharia was employee of the petitioner – Bank and was working as Cashier and during his tenure, he has misappropriated the amounts to the tune of Rs.15,40,000/- and has caused loss to the Bank. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased workman was suspended from the service w.e.f. 23.11.2001. It is also contended that during the pendency of the inquiry, he died on 19.06.2002 and the preliminary report submitted by the Inquiry Officer clearly indicates that the deceased has operated Savings Bank Accounts in the names of other relatives wherein he was one of the beneficiary and by creating such accounts, he has misappropriated the huge amounts of the Bank. It is further contended that as per the Rules and Regulations of the petitioner – Bank, he was paid medical bill, subsistence allowance and leave encashment. It is also contended that as per Bipartite Settlement dated 01.08.1979, the outstanding loan amounts of the deceased could be adjusted against the provident fund balance which is permissible to the petitioners under the law and in view of that, the amounts standing at the credit of the deceased was adjusted against various loans obtained by him.

4.1 According to the petitioners, the respondent herein, who is wife of the deceased employee, has straightway filed recovery application as referred to hereinabove for recovery of the amount of medical bills, subsistence allowance and leave encashment of 184 days during the period from 23.11.2001 to 19.06.2002 and the amount of provident fund of Rs.1,41,659.38. It is also contended that the Tribunal has no authority to pass such order under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as the “I. D. Act”) as there was no right created in favour of the respondent. It is also contended that the respondent ought to have filed necessary reference for establishing her right to claim the amount and ought to have got necessary order from the concerned Court or the Tribunal fixing the amount which may be liable to the paid by the petitioners to the respondent herein. It is further contended that without having filled such reference, the respondent has filed the alleged recovery application straightway before the Labour Court and the same has been entertained by the concerned Labour Court. It is also contended that considering the provisions contained in Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court ought not to have granted the prayer made by the respondent herein.

5. Heard Ms. Dharmishtha Raval, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Mankad, learned advocate for the respondent, at length, through video con