IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
CSB Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M.A. Rappai – Respondent
W.A. No. 468 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Section 33C (2) - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33C(2) - The judgment discusses the scope and effect of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Labour Court loses its jurisdiction if the employer disputes the workmen's right to receive the benefit claimed. The court refers to Ext.P3 award and examines the entitlement of the workman to receive the benefit, emphasizing that the Labour Court has the authority to determine the existence of the right and compute the benefit in terms of money, even if the right is disputed by the employer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of a bank, claimed entitlement to special allowance and filed a claim petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after the benefit was not granted to him despite an award in favor of other employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's claim petition under Section 33C (2) was maintainable, emphasizing that the Labour Court has the authority to determine the existence of the right and compute the benefit in terms of money, even if the right is disputed by the employer.
Issues: Scope and effect of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the maintainability of the petitioner's claim petition under Section 33C (2).
Ratio Decidendi: The Labour Court has the authority to determine the existence of the right and compute the benefit in terms of money, even if the right is disputed by the employer.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the maintainability of the petitioner's claim petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
JUDGMENT :
C.S. SUDHA, J.
1. What is the scope and effect of sub-section (2) to Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act)? Should the workman’s right to receive the benefit claimed by him be admitted or in other words, not disputed by the employer? If the employer dispute’s the workmen's right to receive the benefit in question, does the Labour Court lose its jurisdiction? Is the jurisdiction of the Labour Court confined or limited only to computation of the benefit in terms of money? Let us consider.
2. This intra court appeal has been filed by the first respondent against the judgment dated 13/01/2023 in W.P. (C) No. 19558/2012. The respondents herein are the petitioner and the second respondent respectively in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the first respondent Bank. He commenced his service as sub staff and was thereafter promoted to the clerical cadre during 1986. He superannuated on 31/05/2009. The post in which the petitioner was working was a permanent post and he was drawing daftary allowance on a permanent basis and also received the said allowance during leave period. At the time of his promotion, his salary was fixed as per Ext.P1 Circular No. 221/1983 dated 02/12/1983. His salary in the clerical category was fixed taking into consideration the daftary allowance drawn by him. Accordingly, the first respondent Bank paid salary to the petitioner till 1992. However, in the year 1992, the first respondent Bank suo motu reviewed the pay scale of the petitioner and re-fixed the salary on promotion to a lesser scale with retrospective effect. When the salary was re-fixed, the daftary allowance drawn by the petitioner in the lower cadre was not taken into account. The difference in salary was also recovered in installments from the petitioner. As the Unions were agitating the issue before the Labour Authorities, the petitioner was advised that his grievance would also be redressed when the issue was finally decided. In Industrial Dispute No. 268/2006, the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam was called upon to consider the question whether the first respondent Bank was justified in not taking special allowance for the purpose of fitment and in altering the date of increment to the date of promotion to the sub staff on promotion to the clerical cadre. The Tribunal as per Ext.P3 award dated 06/07/2007 found that the bank was not justified in strictly following Ext.P1 Circular dated 02/12/1983. The special allowance of subordinate staff who were discharging duties of a permanent nature attached to their post and of fitment in the promoted post were not taken into account. Thereafter, when the first respondent Bank implemented Ext.P3 award, the benefit of the same was given to one hundred and fourteen (114) workmen whose wages were fixed as per Ext.P4 circular dated 25/08/1993 issued by the bank changing the fitment formula on promotion to clerical cadre. Except one employee no other employee promoted as per Ext.P1 Circular was given the benefit of Ext.P3 award. As the benefits of Ext.P3 award were not granted to the petitioner, Ext.P6 claim petition under Section 33C (2) of the Act before the second respondent was preferred.
4. The first respondent Bank filed counter statement denied the allegation of the petitioner that he was drawing daftary allowance on a permanent basis. The petitioner was paid special allowance @ Rs. 20/- as cash allowance while working at the Kozhikode City branch during 1982; special allowance @ Rs. 34 as bill collection allowance while working at the branch in Cochin during 1983 and was paid special allowance @ Rs. 66/- as daftary allowance while he was working at the head office of the bank. The employees discharging duties of a permanent nature alone are entitled for special allowance on a permanent basis and if an employee is entitled to an allowanc
Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. P.S. Rajagopalan
Central Bank of India vs. Sirir Kumar Shaw
Namor Ali vs. The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 275
The Labour Court has the authority to determine the existence of the right and compute the benefit in terms of money, even if the right is disputed by the employer.
Section 33(C)(1) of I.D.Act deals with situation where money is due to a workman under a settlement or an award.
Under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate claims without prior recognition of entitlement; it can only enforce existing rights.
Section 33C(2) is more comprehensive than Section 33C(1). Section 33C(2) applies not only to cases of settlement or award or cases under Chapter VA of the Act, but to other cases as well. By a proces....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when the claim....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, requires a pre-existing right or an award passed by a competent cou....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.