Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
The Food Corporation of India - Petitioner
Versus
Chandrashekhar Sharma, S/o. Late Girija Sharma & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (L) No. 652 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2023
Industrial Disputes Act - Jurisdiction - Section 33A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides for adjudication as to whether conditions of service changed during the pendency of proceedings. The court highlighted the requirement of the pendency of proceedings before a labor court or tribunal for entertaining an application under Section 33A.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were awarded punishment, and they filed a petition under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming that a reference was pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal entertained the application under Section 33A, but the petitioner argued that the reference had been disposed of before the filing of the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal committed a manifest error by entertaining the application under Section 33A as no industrial dispute was pending before it involving the petitioner at the time of filing the complaint case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the reference was pending before the Tribunal at the time of filing the complaint case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sine-qua-non for entertaining the application under Section 33A is the pendency of proceedings before the labor court or tribunal, and since no industrial dispute was pending before the Tribunal at the time of filing the complaint case, the Tribunal committed a manifest error.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal, stating that the respondents may approach the appellate authority subject to the limitation to be decided by the appellate authority.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
(b) and other reliefs incidental or consequential to the said relief.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents were awarded punishment by two separate punishment orders, the copies of which have been kept at page nos. 65-70 and 71-72 of the brief. The respondent no.1 was imposed with the penalty of withholding of two increments for one year without cumulative effect and the respondent no.2 was imposed with the penalty of total recovery of Rs.50,000/- from the pay in ten installments. In the punishment order itself, it has been mentioned that an appeal lies to the General Manager (R), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office at Patna and such appeal can be filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the punishment order. A reference in respect of the respondents and others vide Reference No. 138 of 1997 was made by the appropriate government. The respondents who are the applicants of complaint case no. 12 of 2015 filed a petition under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming that Reference No. 138 of 1997 was still pending before the Tribunal on 24.08.2015 when the said application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 bearing complaint case no. 12 of 2015 was filed before the Tribunal for adjudication. Undisputedly, as is evident from annexure-8, the Award in respect of the said Reference No. 138 of 1997 was passed on 24.03.2015 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad; hence no reference was pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as on 24.08.2015. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, failed to consider this fact that as on filing of the complaint no. 12 of 2015 on 24.08.2015, the reference no. 138 of 1997 was not pending before the Tribunal and by overlooking the said fact, held that the complaint filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 vide complaint case no. 12 of 2015 is maintainable. The tribunal also overruled the objection of this writ petitioner who was the opposite party before it; to the effect that as there was an alternative remedy of filing the appeal, the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable and passed the said award.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tribunal committed perversity by holding that the complaint case no. 12 of 2015 filed invoking the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was maintainable because of the pendency of the reference case no. 138 of 1997 is a perverse one and is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record as is evident from the annexure-8, which categorically establishes that reference case no. 138 of 1997 was disposed of on 24.03.2015 much prior to the filing of the application of complaint case no. 12 of 2015 on 24.08.2015. Hence, it is submitted that as the Industrial Tribunal was not having the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in the absence of any proceeding before it; apart from the said complaint, at the time of filing complaint case no. 12 of 2015, therefore, the impugned award is a perverse one passed with a wrong notion of having jurisdiction to entertain such an application. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made by the petitioner be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the punishment order of the respondent no.1 is co
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of proceedings before a labor court or tribunal is a prerequisite for entertaining an application under Section 33A of the Indust....
The Labour Court cannot entertain applications under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of dismissal, as this limitation is mandator....
The power of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to mold relief in case of delay in raising the dispute.
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.
Claims under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act require a prior adjudication or an agreement where the entitlement is undisputed.
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
