Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Ramesh Ch. Patra - Petitioner
Versus
P.O., Labour Court, Jeypore and others - Opposite Parties
O.J.C. Nos.103 and 104 of 2000
Decided on : 06-10-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. S.S. Rao, B.K. Mohanty, S. Patra, N. Pattnaik.
For the Opp.Parties : M/s. D. Mohanta, B. Rout, D.K. Mohanty, K.R. Mohapatra, P.K. Panda.
The main legal point established is that the interpretation of Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, as provided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, must be considered in determining the maintainability of applications for recovery of unpaid benefits.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - Section 17(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a News Contributor, filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act for recovery of unpaid remuneration. The Labour Court rejected the application, advising recourse to Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Labour Court's rejection of the application to be erroneous, as it did not consider the intent of Section 33C(2) as interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. P.S. Rajagopalan.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petitioner's application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act and the applicability of Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the application without considering the interpretation of Section 33C(2) provided by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It emphasized that the petitioner's right to receive the benefit must be determined before computing the amount due.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Labour Court's order and remanded the matter for disposal in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Prasad, J.
The order dated 22.6.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Misc. Case No.29 of 1996 whereby and where under an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been held to be not maintainable and as such rejected.
2. Brief case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as News Contributor for three months on 9.12.1988. He continued to discharge duty but remuneration has not given to him, hence issued notice through Advocate demanding payment, however the management has denied its liability. Hence, an application has been filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act but however the same was rejected being held to be not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner who is a working journalists could have resorted the procedure contemplated under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, since the remuneration which the petitioner is claiming has been disputed by the management.
3. Before appreciating the legality and propriety of the order, it is necessary to deal with the provision of Section 33-C(2) and the scope of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.
4. Section 33-C(2) provides a provision for recovery of money due to an employee from his employer. Sub-section (1) of Section 33C is a provision in the nature of execution proceeding and it contemplates that if money is due to workman under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VB, he is not compelled to take recourse to the ordinary recourse of execution in a civil Court, but may adopt a summary procedure prescribed by this sub-section.
5. This provision enables a workman to make an application to the appropriate Government for the issue of a certificate, for any money due to him under an award or settlement or under the provisions of Chapter VA or VB, to the Collector, for its recovery as arrears of land revenue. If on such application being made under sub-section (1), the appropriate Government is satisfied that a specific amount is due to the workman, then it will issue a certificate to the Collector, for the recovery of the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. In this respect, the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with this issue in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vrs. P.S. Rajagopalan reported in AIR 1964 SC 743.
6. Before going into the impugned order, it is necessary to deal with the provisions of Section 33C of the I.D. Act and in appreciating the finding, it is necessary to see the provision of Section 33C, which is being reproduced herein below:-
“33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.- (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of [Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B], the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:
Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer : Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed
