The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a pre-existing right and entitlement of the employees as a prerequisite for entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in Claim Petition No:8 of 2016 and to quash the same.

The award of the III Additional Labour Court dated 21.12.2018 in Claim Petition Nos.8/2016, 17/2016, 18/2016, 10/2016, 9/2016, 16/2016, 24/2016, 19/2016, 23/2016, 26/2016, 21/2016, 28/2016, 25/2016, 27/2016, 22/2016, 15/2016, 11/2016, 14/2016, 13/2016, 29/2016 and 20/2016 respectively are under challenge in the present Writ Petitions.

2. The petitioner which is a Company filed the Writ Petitions mainly on the ground that the Labour Court passed an award in a Claim Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, without even considering the pre-existing right which is mandatory for the purpose of entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner contended that the respondent employees admittedly submitted their respective resignation letters which were accepted by the Management and accordingly, all the benefits due to them were settled. The said documents were filed before the Labour Court by the Management. That apart, the benefits paid by the Management were acknowledged by the employees and receipts were supplied. Those receipts were also filed as documents before the Labour Court. Despite the fact that the employees resigned their job and accepted the benefits due to them, the Labour Court erroneously entertained the Claim Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is not maintainable.

4. In order to substantiate the entertain ability of the Claim Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Senior counsel drew the attention of this Court with reference to the findings of the Labour Court more specifically regarding the resignation of employees. The Labour Court proceeded under the pretext that the resignation of the petitioners can be taken as a voluntary act yet the Labour Court can equally treat the resignation as with coercion obtained by the Management. Such finding is perverse and not supported by any documents. It is not in dispute that the employees offered their resignation and accordingly, they were relieved from employment. The acceptance of resignation was neither challenged nor disputed. The acknowledgement of the benefits are also not denied by the employees. While so, the Claim Petition cannot be maintained in respect of any new claim if any made by the employees. In the present case, the petition under Section 33 (C) (2) was filed by the employees to compute the money value towards separation benefits due to them along with the interest. The separation benefits as claimed by the employees are not part of the benefits settled by the Management on acceptance of resignation. Thus, the separation benefits is a new benefit which was claimed by the employees which was not part of the dues to be settled by the Management on the resignation of the employees. Whenever a new claim is made by the employees then an adjudication is mandatory and in the absence of any adjudication or crystallisation of rights, the Claim Petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is not entertainable.

5. Section 33 (C) (2) contemplates that “Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money”. Therefore, the entitlement of an employee is the pre-requisite condition for the purpose of entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 33 (C) (2). If there is any dispute regarding the entitlement then an adjudication must be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the rights of the employees. Therefore, in the present case the resignation is not in dispute and the benefits