The main legal point established in the judgment is that the monetary claims made by the workmen under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were not maintainable in the absence of adjudication of their pre-existing rights.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellant/Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ Appeal as against the order dated 23.07.2008 in W.P.No.2296 of 2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the orders in W.P.No.2296 of 2008 on 23.07.2008, (filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner), has, among other things, observed that in the case on hand, the Labour Court (1st Respondent) has rightly gone into the question of examining the claims of workmen under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33C (2)of the Act etc. and has rendered a finding that the industrial establishments has in fact been closed and accordingly, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has concluded the amount due to the workmen and ordered the management to pay the same and consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, the Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the W.P.No.2296 of 2008, had failed to appreciate that an application as per Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable without there being a prior adjudication, reference or determination of the rights of the workmen.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court had erred in holding that the pendency of I.D.No.46 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai was not a bar to adjudicate the petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Petitioner (Management) that the Learned Single Judge had failed to take into consideration that the issue pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal is whether the Management had suspended the work temporarily or there was an illegal closure of the establishment.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner submits that the Learned Single Judge wrongly observed in the Writ Petition that Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, embraces within its ambit the pre-existing rights of workmen emanating from Chapter V(A) or V(B) of the Act.

7. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner that the Learned Single Judge had omitted to take into account of the fact that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act could not usurp the powers and functions of the Industrial Tribunal and that too, when I.D.No.46 of 2002 is admittedly pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal.

8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Contesting Respondents that the Appellant/Management had not obtained permission as per Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act from the Government to close down the establishment and therefore, the said closure was an illegal one.

9. Further, it is the plea of the Contesting Respondents/Workmen that from the day of deemed closure, they were entitled to get all monetary benefits and in respect of recovery of money due from the Appellant/Management, the claim petitions filed by the workmen were per se maintainable in law.

10. To put it differently, the stand of the contesting workmen is that a right to recover monetary amount due from the Appellant/ Management is a pre-existing right by operation of law as per Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in such an event, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has every jurisdiction to compute the monetary benefits due in terms of Section 33C (2) of the Act.

11. In short, the Learned Counsel for the Contesting Respondents contends that both the 1st Respondent/Labour Court and the Learned Single Judge had rightly held that the claim petitions filed by the Respondents/Workmen are maintainable and ultimately, directed the Appellant/Management to pay the amount calculated by the 1st Respondent/Labour Cour