Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The Management of Toll (India) Logistics Pvt. Limited, Represented by Managing Director, Puzhal - Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Another - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 1357 to 1359 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 1727 to 1729 of 2018
Decided On : 17-09-2019
For the Petitioner:Sai Raaj for M/s. Sai Raaj Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Labour Court.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - 12(3) Settlement, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, State Bank of India vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and Others, K.S. Natarajan vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and Ananda Vikadan Vasan Publication Ltd, K.V. Joseph vs. Pierce Leslie India Ltd and Others, The Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, K. Shanmugam and D. Krishnan, D. Krishnan and Another vs. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and Another, Brijpal Singh, Tara and Others vs. Director, Social Welfare and Others - The court discussed the entitlement of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the need for a pre-existing right or entitlement before entertaining a claim petition. The court highlighted the principles established by various High Courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate on benefits without a prior adjudication or recognition by the employer, and that the claim must be based on an existing right or benefit.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a logistics company, terminated a driver for refusing to join a transferred place. The driver filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking dearness allowance, personal leave arrears, and overtime arrears. The Labour Court adjudicated the claim, finding the workman entitled to the benefits, which the petitioner challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court erred in entertaining the claim petition without the establishment of a pre-existing right or entitlement by the workman. It emphasized that the claim must be based on an existing right or benefit, and the Labour Court cannot adjudicate on benefits without a prior adjudication or recognition by the employer.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the need for a pre-existing right or entitlement before entertaining a claim petition, and the Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on benefits without a prior adjudication or recognition by the employer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the established legal principles that a claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be based on an existing right or benefit, and the Labour Court cannot adjudicate on benefits without a prior adjudication or recognition by the employer.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Labour Court, emphasizing the need for a pre-existing right or entitlement before entertaining a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and allowed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
1. The order of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai dated 31.07.2017 passed in CP No.421 of 2010 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner is the management of Toll (India) Logistics Pvt. Limited. The writ petitioner-management is engaged in providing logistic Services. The second respondent-workman was employed as a Driver of the Heavy Vehicle. On account of transfer to some other Station, the second respondent-workman refused to join in the transferred place and challenged the said order of transfer. However, the transfer order issued by the writ petitioner-management was upheld and the second respondent-workman was terminated from service on account of the fact that the second respondent-workman failed to join in the transferred place.
3. The dispute raised by the second respondent-workman, challenging an order of termination was also dismissed by the Labour Court and the termination became final. Apart from challenging the order of termination, the second respondent-workman filed claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, claiming the benefit of dearness allowance, personal leave arrears and overtime arrears.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-management states that the entitlement of the second respondent-workman was not even crystallized and the benefits including dearness allowance, personal leave arrears and overtime arrears were not provided under 12(3) Settlement, in view of the fact that such benefits were not accorded to the second respondent-workman under 12(3) Settlement. If at all any such claim is made, then an adjudication is a precondition for entertaining a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In other words, the second respondent-workman failed to establish any pre-existing right, so as to entertain the claim petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. Contrarily, the Labour Court proceeded with an adjudication and itself arrived a conclusion that the second respondent-workman is entitled for the benefits of dearness allowance, personal leave arrears and overtime arrears. Such a finding of the Labour Court given independently without establishing any pre-existing right of the second respondent-workman is not only untenable but also in violation of the legal principles established by the Apex Court as well as by various High Courts.
6. The very maintainability of the claim petition is questioned by the writ petitioner-management on the ground that in the absence of establishing any pre-existing or prior adjudication of the issues or crystallizing the rights of the second respondent-workman, no claim petition can be entertained by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. To substantiate the abovesaid ground, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-management solicited the attention of this Court regarding the determination of award by the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and Another [(1995) 1 LLJ 395 (SC)], decided on 20.10.1994, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 12 which reads as under:-
“12. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.”
8. In the case of State Bank of India vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and Others [MA
