The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate undetermined claims of the workman under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and can only compute entitlement based on previous determination or settlement.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra,J.

The Divisional Manager, Odisha Forest Development Corporation, Baripada (for short, ‘the Corporation’) has filed this writ petition assailing order dated 16.07.2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in ID Misc. Case No.292 of 1994 filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the ID Act’), wherein the petitioner-Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.39,000/-towards wages and Rs.1,000/-towards house rent to one Keshab Chandra Nayak (for short ‘the workman’) (since dead represented by his legal heirs OP No.1(a) to 1(c).

2. Mr.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that one Keshab Chandra Nayak, the workman, filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act before learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in ID Misc. Case No.292 of 1994 for computation of his arrear salary, house rent and bonus etc. for the period from 1981 to 1993.

3. It is his submission that the Corporation is a Government of Odisha Undertaking, which along with other activities was undertaking seasonal collection of sal-seeds as and when Government of Odisha allots different areas to it for such collection. The Corporation, for that purpose used to engage its regular employees along with seasonal workers and agents during the collection season, which was almost about two months. Ordinarily the sal-seeds are collected in the month of May and June each year. Said Sri Nayak-workman belonged to Badgaon under Bangiriposi Police Station in the district of Mayurbhanj. He was engaged on commission basis under the erstwhile Similipahar Forest Development Corporation. He worked for the Corporation till 1992 as a commission agent during the collection season, when he expressed his unwillingness to continue further on the ground that the commission so received was insufficient. However, during the year 1993, said Sri Nayak was engaged for collection of sal-seeds from 18.05.1993 to till 16.06.1993 and was paid Rs.450/-and house rent of Rs.25/-for stacking of sal-seeds. The workman being dissatisfied with the same, filed a complaint before the District Labour Officer, Mayurbhanj on 28.04.1994 (Annexure-1) alleging that he was engaged for collection of sal-seeds vide office order dated 12.05.1993 and claimed arrear wages from 18.04.1993 to 28.05.1993. He also claimed house rent and travelling allowance for the said period. Subsequently, the workman abandoned the same and filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act in ID Misc. Case No.292 of 1994 before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar claiming salary for the year 1993 to the tune of Rs.12,000/-with house rent for the period from 1981 to 1994 @Rs.2,000/-per annum amounting Rs.26,000/-and bonus and cycle allowance etc. to the tune of Rs.26,000/-. In total, he claimed Rs.64,000/-in the claim petition filed under Section 33-C(2) (Annexure-4). The Corporation filed its counter disputing the entire claim stating the aforesaid facts.

4. In course of hearing, both the Workman as well as the Corporation examined one witness each and produced certain documents in support of their respective cases. Although the claim of the Workman was seriously disputed by the Corporation (opposite party before the learned Labour Court), learned Labour Court proceeded with the matter to adjudicate upon the same and passed impugned order under Annexure-8.

5. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate assailing the impugned order submitted that Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act does not empower the industrial adjudicator to adjudicate upon the disputed claim of the parties. He can only compute entitlement of the workman on the basis of the previous adjudication or settlement. In support of his case, Mr.Pattnaik relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Brijpal Singh, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 58. He argued that since there was a serious dispute with regard to the period, manner of engagement o