Retired workmen can maintain claims under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the need for consideration of pre-existing rights.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

Heard.

2. The Petitioner was employed as a Salesperson in the Respondent Society from 01.07.1978. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, she retired from service on 31.05.2013, having rendered 35 years of service. Her last drawn monthly salary was Rs.11,783/-. Following her retirement, she approached the Additional Labour Court, Coimbatore, by filing a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking payment of earned leave wages for a period of eight months, amounting to a sum of Rs.1,00,336/-. The said petition was registered as C.P. No. 85 of 2013, and notice was ordered to be issued to the Respondent Society.

3. The Respondent Society filed its counter statement dated 01.07.2015. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Petitioner examined herself as WW1 and her husband, R. Kathiresan, as WW2. In support of her case, 18 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits W1 to W18. On behalf of the Respondent Society, one Selvi Latha was examined as MW1, and 7 documents were filed on their side, which were marked as Exhibits M1 to M7.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 seeking production of three documents from the Respondent Society, namely: the acquittance register, the special byelaws of the Society, and the punishment order issued to her. By order dated 04.03.2019, the Labour Court directed production of the said documents, subject to the Petitioner paying a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Respondent Society. Pursuant thereto, the three acquittance registers and the byelaws, including the special byelaws of the Society, were produced and marked as Exhibits X1 to X5. The Petitioner also filed written submissions, dated Nil, before the Labour Court.

5. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record, the Labour Court concluded that the Claim Petition filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking earned leave wages, was not maintainable, as the Petitioner had no pre-existing right to the said claim. The Labour Court further upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent Management, holding that the Petitioner, having retired from service, does not fall within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. On both these grounds, the Claim Petition was dismissed. The Labour Court, in paragraphs 22 to 24 of its order, observed as follows:–

“22. 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act would not contemplate the determination and adjudication of rights of parties. Accordingly, the claims of the petitioner, when denied by the management, cannot be adjudicated and determined under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is maintainable only when there is a determined amount and when such amount is denied by the employer. Hence the claim made by the petitioner, is not maintainable, as it requires prior adjudication. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that this petition has been filed without any basis and on imaginary grounds, merits acceptance by this court.

23. Further, the petitioner has not filed any petition seeking fixation of her wages, while she was in service. The Joint Registrar has not specifically fixed the wages of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the wages of the petitioner is not determined. The decisions cited by the respondent reveal that the retired employee is not a workman as defined u/s. 2(s) of the I.D.Act and so when the status denied by the respondent, its contention that the petitioner cannot maintain this petition, cannot be simply brushed aside. The petitioner has expanded her case by raising new aspects at the time of evidence, cross-examination of M.W-1 and in the arguments, without proper pleadings in the computation petition. Those aspects which are seriously disputed by the respondent, require prior adjudication by proper authority. The decisions relied on by the respondent are squarely attracte