The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) is limited to interpreting awards and cannot adjudicate disputed claims; a pre-existing right must be established for recovery applications.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Anand, in Recovery (C) Application No.15 of 2021, dated 05.06.2024 whereby, the application filed by the present petitioner seeking recovery of the amount of Rs.3,03,750/- claiming certain benefits came to be rejected.

2. It is the case of present petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the establishment of the respondent in the month of February-2002 and service of the petitioner came to be terminated on 01.12.2013. The dispute came to be raised before the learned Labour Court, which was registered as Reference (T) No.90 of 2015. The learned Labour Court after considering the evidence placed passed an award on 11.11.2019, allowing the reference partly and directing the respondent to pay 25% wages from 31.05.2014 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.05.2016 and also directed to pay the benefit which he was entitled. The petitioner filed recovery application, which came to be rejected and same is subject matter of consideration before this court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T. Mishra for the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that after the award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (T) No.90 of 2015, the payment towards wages was paid Rs.26,520/- along with the cost of Rs.2,500/-. Learned advocate submits that the respondent-authority has not paid the other wages namely salary of 15^th August and 26^th January, bonus from 2013 onwards, paid holidays wages, rise of Rs.20/- per day from 2010, the amount towards the rent etc. Learned advocate submits that as along with the direction for payment of 25% of the wages, the learned Labour Court has also directed upon the respondent to pay other benefits which he is entitled, the petitioner would be entitled for the above wages and the same was not paid. Learned advocate submits that the learned Labour Court has rejected the recovery application merely on the ground that there is no any pre-existing right therefore, under the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the petitioner cannot claim the above benefits.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra relies on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Ravindran vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, reported in (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 222 and submitted that when the termination was held illegal, the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits as if he was never terminated. Learned advocate submits that the claim for minimum wages was also denied by the learned Labour Court, however, as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjit Roy vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1983 (2) SCR 271, wherein, it was held that payment of anything less than minimum wages would amount to violation of fundamental rights under Article 223 of the Constitution of India. Learned advocate submits that without following the above settled position of law, the impugned award is passed, therefore the same deserves to be set aside and the petition is required to be allowed.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as on perusing the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges from the record that petitioner on getting the relief of 25% back wages from 31.05.2014 to 31.05.2016 has claimed following benefits: