Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
M. K. THAKKER, J
JAYANTI ISHWARBHAI PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
SHETH SHRI SABBIR MOHAMMED ZUBAIR – Respondent
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. L
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.
The limitation provided for in it is for requesting appropriate government for issuance of recovery certificate, as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 33C of ‘the Act’ and present proceeding is n....
Termination deemed unlawful when employer fails to present evidence; reinstatement and back wages are justified under social welfare legislation.
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enforces adjudicated wage claims, without re-examining eligibility; established employer-employee relations must be acknowledged.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a pre-existing right and entitlement of the employees as a prerequisite for entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 33 (C....
The Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain wage claims under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Limitation Act does not apply such claims.
The Labour Court is limited to interpreting existing awards or settlements and cannot adjudicate disputes without prior recognition of claims, as per Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
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
