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.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the employer, challenging the award dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Recovery Application (C-2) No.241 of 2023, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.39,000/- to the respondent-workman towards unpaid wages.

2. The gist of the case is that the respondent was serving as a Computer Operator with the petitioner establishment and was drawing monthly wages of Rs.4,500/-. It is the case of the respondent that wages for the period from August 2015 to March 2016, i.e., for the months of August, September, October, November, December 2015 and January, February, March 2016, were not paid by the petitioner. Upon demanding the wages, the Taluka Development Officer instructed the respondent to continue with the work. However, despite rendering services for nine months, no wages were paid. Consequently, the respondent filed a Recovery Application under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act' hereinafter), relying on documentary evidence in the form of a certificate issued by the Taluka Development Officer, which certified the respondent's nine months of service. After considering the certificate and the submissions made by the petitioner, the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay the unpaid wages, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya submits that the claim for payment of wages cannot be entertained under Section 33 (C)(2) of the I.D. Act, as no prior adjudication has been made by any Court of law before filing the said application. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya submits further submits that the application is barred by limitation, as the claim pertains to the period from August 2015 to April 2016, whereas the proceedings were initiated only in the year 2023, and that too under the provisions of Section 33 (C)(2) of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya also submits that the appropriate remedy for such a claim lies under the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , and therefore, the learned Labour Court has committed an error in entertaining and allowing the application filed by the respondent.

4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya submits that for the period in respect of which the demand has been made, the respondent did not perform any work, and therefore, is not entitled to claim wages under Section 33 (C)(2) of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya further submits that as the claim raised by the respondent is seriously disputed by the present petitioner, the learned Labour Court has committed an error in allowing the application and in directing the petitioner to pay wages for the period from August 2015 to April 2016.

4.2. In view of above submissions, learned advocate Ms.Pandya has requested to set aside the impugned order and allow the present petition.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges as an undisputed fact that the present respondent was serving as a computer operator since 2001, having completed 22 years of service, and was drawing monthly wages of Rs.4,500/-. It is also not disputed that no wages were paid to the respondent for the period from August 2015 to April 2016. To justify the non-payment of wages, the petitioner contended that the respondent had not rendered any work during the said period, and therefore, under the principle of ‘no work, no pay’, wages were not li