The Labour Court lacks authority under Section 33C(2) to adjudicate claims involving industrial disputes; however, it can enforce recoveries for documented employee negligence under the Payment of Wages Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition is the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., a state-owned undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "Management"). Through this writ petition, the Management challenges the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the II Additional Labour Court in C.P. No. 113 of 2016. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs. 5,04,713/- as due and payable to the respondent workman, along with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 10.01.2020, this Court, while ordering notice to the respondent, also granted an interim stay for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, on 10.07.2020, the interim stay was extended until further orders. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 28.08.2020, this Court passed the following order:

“The grievance ventilated by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the Labour Court has denied the Petitioner of the right to adjust that amount towards the losses owed to the Petitioner by the Respondent.

Having due regard to the nature of the controversy involved, it would not be justified to unconditionally stay of the impugned order without providing security for its due compliance, if it has to be ultimately confirmed. As such, there shall be an order of interim stay of the impugned order till the next hearing on condition that the Petitioner shall invest the entire amount of Rs. 5,04,713/- along with costs of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of the impugned order in an interest fetching fixed deposit in the name of the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in any Nationalized Bank in Chennai initially for a period of one year and renewable automatically for the same period from time to time and hand over the original Fixed Deposit receipt to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, under written acknowledgment, and file proof of such compliance before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 13.10.2020 without fail.”

4. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the Senior Regional Manager of the petitioner corporation addressed a letter dated 28.09.2020 containing the following statement:

5. Upon receipt of notice from this Court, the Respondent entered appearance through counsel and filed a counter affidavit dated Nil, August 2020. When the matter was listed on 10.02.2025, a request was made for time to file an additional typed set concerning the undertaking given by the Respondent workman, relating to the deduction from earned leave wages payable to the Respondent. Pursuant thereto, the counsel for the Petitioner produced a copy of the consent letter dated 13.03.2015, executed by the Respondent at the time of retirement. The said consent letter, which was also marked as Ex.R1 = Ex.R12 before the Labour Court, reads as follows:

6. The Respondent filed a claim statement before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,04,713/- towards earned and unearned leave. He stated that he had served as Assistant Manager – Quality Control and retired on 31.03.2015 under certain conditions. It was also communicated to him that an amount of Rs. 17,376/-, along with a sum towards stock deficit, was payable by him. However, although reports received from various officers indicated that no dues were outstanding, the Respondent was not paid his wages. The application was