Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 409
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
State of Rajasthan through Executive Engineer Irrigation Div.I. - Appellant
Versus
Prabhas Choudhary - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 349 of 2003
Decided On : 05/08/2003
Appearance :
G.K. Vyas, Advocate, for the Appellant.
R.S. Saluja, Advocate for Respondent No. 1, for the Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court can only entertain an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 when the claim is undisputed and the benefit claimed is capable of being computed in terms of money.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes - Act of 1947, Section 33-C(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and highlighted the conditions for entertaining an application under this section. The court emphasized that the Labour Court can only entertain an application under Section 33-C(2) when the claim is undisputed and the benefit claimed is capable of being computed in terms of money. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara, which awarded salary to the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner contended that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's claim for salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) was not maintainable as the claim for salary was disputed and the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of entitlement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, considering the disputed nature of the claim for salary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court can only entertain an application under Section 33-C(2) when the claim is undisputed and the benefit claimed is capable of being computed in terms of money. The court also emphasized that the remedy provided under Section 33-C(2) is available only when there is no dispute about the entitlement of the benefit due to the workman.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Labour Court was quashed and set aside.
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 1.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 112.2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara (respondent No. 2) by which the learned Labour Court on an application filed by the respondent No. 1 Prabhas Choudhary under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) awarded Rs. 44,552/-to the respondent No. 1 as salary for the period from March, 2001 to June, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 11,138/-per month, be quashed and set aside.
2. The case of the petitioner as put forward in this writ petition is as follows :
The employees, who were found excessive, were ordered to be transferred by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur and various orders were issued in this regard and at last on 3.2001, an order was issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur by which as many as 83 employees were ordered to be transferred from Udaipur Zone to the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Hahumangarh. A copy of the said order dated 3.200 1 is marked as Annex. 2.
Against the said order of transfer Annex. 2, employees of Irrigation Department filed a writ petition before this Court being Sinchai Vibhag Karmachari Sangh vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 949/2001).
The further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the order of transfer dated 3.200 1 (Annex. 2), the petitioner Executive Engineer passed an order of reliving the employee, who were working under his control and the respondent No. 1 Prabhas Choudhary was also ordered to be relieved on 8.3.2001 and the relieving order was received by the respondent No. 1 on the same day i.e. on 8.3.2001.
The further case of the petitioner is that no doubt the order of transfer dated 3.2001 (Annex. 2) was stayed by this Court in the above writ petition being No. 949/2001 vide order dated 23.2001 and that stay order dated 23.2001 was extended on 8.2001 for one week and thereafter, it was not extended and on 26.3.2002, the second stay petition was dismissed meaning thereby after extending the stay on 8.2001 for one week, there was no stay and the main writ petition is still pending before this Court for final adjudication.
The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the respondent No. 1 filed an application (Annex. 4) under Section 33- C (2) of the. Act of 1947 before the respondent No. 2 Labour Court. Bhilwara claiming salary for the period from March, 2001 to June 2001 to the tune of Rs. 44,552/-on the ground that he was in the service of the petitioner at Udaipur.
The said application of the respondent No. 1 filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 was entertained by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file reply and the reply of the petitioner was closed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court on 211.2001.
Thereafter, on 112.2002, after hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 2) passed the impugned order Annex. 1 and awarded salary of Rs. 44,552A to the respondent No. 1 for the
period from March, 2001 to June, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 11,138/- per month, repelling all the contentions raised by the petitioner.
In this writ petition, the impugned order Annex. 1 dated 112.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bhilwara has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and some of them are as, follows :-
(i) That under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, no entitlement in respect of salary can be determined and adjudicated by the Labour Court and only due amount on account of the “entitlement” already adjudicated, could be ordered to be paid, but in the present case, through impugned order Annex. 1, the learned Labour Court treated the respondent No. 1 on duties for the per
