Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ram Kishore - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1593/2021
Decided on : 24-02-2021
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33C(2) - APPLICATION FOR WAGES - SUMMARY: The court upheld the Labour Court's order directing the State to pay the respondent-employee his due wages as claimed in his application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court found that the State's reply to the claim was cursory and did not dispute the quantum of the claim. The court also noted that the State had not objected to the claim before the Labour Court and had not even brought it as a fact that the respondent was an unskilled workman. Therefore, the court held that the State's challenge to the quantum of the amount was untenable.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-employee filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,538/- as his due wages. The State filed a reply to the claim, but it did not dispute the quantum of the claim or the fact that the respondent was an unskilled workman.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State's reply to the claim was cursory and did not dispute the quantum of the claim. The court also noted that the State had not objected to the claim before the Labour Court and had not even brought it as a fact that the respondent was an unskilled workman. Therefore, the court held that the State's challenge to the quantum of the amount was untenable.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court erred in accepting the claim/application filed by the respondent-employee as it is.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court did not err in accepting the claim/application filed by the respondent-employee as it is. The court found that the State's reply to the claim was cursory and did not dispute the quantum of the claim. The court also noted that the State had not objected to the claim before the Labour Court and had not even brought it as a fact that the respondent was an unskilled workman. Therefore, the court held that the State's challenge to the quantum of the amount was untenable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State.
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.12.2019, passed by the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") in an application filed by the respondent-employee under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947").
2. The precise facts germane for the present purposes are that pursuant to respondent's request, a reference came to be made to the Labour Court and a case - Labour Dispute Case No.10/2020 was registered. Vide award dated 28.11.2016 the Labour Court allowed the application and ordered reinstatement of the respondent from the date of his termination (17.08.2011) alongwith 50% back wages.
3. State's writ petition against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2016 has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 08.12.2017 and intra-Court appeal filed there against too has been dismissed by the Division Bench on 28.02.2019.
4. Meanwhile, as the State did not comply with the award aforesaid, the respondent filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 and claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,538/- as his due wages.
5. A reply to the claim petition was filed by the present petitioner-State. It would not be out of place to reproduce the reply herein extenso; hence the same is being done.
6. The learned Labour Court passed the order dated 06.12.2019 and directed the State to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,538/-along with interest @ 6% per annum, while also imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the concerned Executive Engineer.
7. On 05.02.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the State to file a copy of the sanction given by the State for filing the writ petition so also an additional affidavit, as to whether compliance of the order impugned has been made by the State.
8. Mr. Deepak Chandak, associate to Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State invited Court's attention towards sanction dated 06.03.2020, issued by the State for filing the writ petition and informed that the State is under process of complying with the order dated 06.12.2019.
9. Be that as it may.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State was asked to advance his arguments on merit of the case.
11. Mr. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner-State argued that the Labour Court has committed an error in accepting the claim/application filed by the respondent-employee as it is.
12. According to him, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to determine the amount payable instead of accepting the claim as a gospel truth. He emphasised that the respondent has claimed wages/salary equal to what is payable to a skilled worker, whereas the respondent was an unskilled workman. He submitted that as per notification issued by the State Government, the respondent was not entitled for the wages as claimed.
13. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, passed in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak & Ors. reported in 1995 1 SCC 235 and submitted that proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 are like execution proceedings.
14. Heard.
15. A perusal of the facts and the material available on record shows that in response to the claim filed by the respondent-labourer, the State has filed a cursory, rather shoddy reply; so much so, even the fact that the claimant was an unskilled workman has not been indicated, much less disputing quantum of claim.
16. Such being the position, the Labour Court had no other option but to accept the application filed by the respondent-claimant.
17. The petitioner-State filed an additional affidavit and submitted that they have calculated a sum of Rs.1,76,193.50/- payable to the respondent-claimant being 50% of Rs.3,52,337/-.
18. In considered opinion of this Court, since the State has not objected the claim made by the respondent and has not even brought it as a fact that the res
mistral
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
