Scope of provisions of Section 33-6 of the Act.

On an application by the 1st respondent, who resigned from service with effect from 5th January, 1961, the Labour Court, Madras, computed the gratuity due to him under an earlier settlement. The Labour Court ordered a sum of Rs. 2,534-52 nP., under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to be paid to him on account of gratuity. This petition is to quash that order.

The first of the contentions urged for the petitioner is that gratuity being an item included in the Third Schedule to the Act, it is the Industrial Tribunal who will have jurisdiction and not the Labour Court. But this argument overlooks the fact that what is done by the Labour Court is not an adjudication upon the liability for gratuity, but only computation of the gratuity which the 1st respondent was entitled to under an anterior settlement. The jurisdiction under section 33-C is in a sense not original but is executory in nature, giving effect to settlements and awards by computation of the benefits flowing thereunder or determining the quantum of the benefits accruing under Chapter V-A of the Act. There is, therefore, no substance in this point.

It is next contended that since on the date of the application under section 33-C the 1st respondent was no longer a workman and since also he had resigned from service, he would not be a workman within the meaning of the term under the Industrial Disputes Act , and that therefore the application under section 33-C was not maintainable. It is true that a person who has resigned from service is not one of the categories of persons within the ambit of the inclusive part of the definition of a ‘workman’. But it is a well-known principle that the statuts of the party for purposes of relief on the execution side should be determined as on the date when the Tight accrued and not on the date on which the right is said to be enforced. When that settlement was entered into which was the source of liability for gratuity in favour of the 1st respondent, he was undoubtedly a workman within the meaning of the Act. That being the case, he was competent to file the application under section 33-C.

The petition is dismissed but with no costs.

R.M.-----Petition dismissed.