Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Panchayat Bhawan, Sonepat – Appellant
Versus
Kanta Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
In the present petition, the challenge is to the award dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Labour Court, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-9 wherein, the benefit of salary for the period from 01.09.2016 to 02.1.2018 has been extended in favour of the respondent No.1-Workman in an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 qua the award 31.08.2016, wherein the benefit of reinstatement along with 50% of the back-wages had been awarded to the respondent No.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the benefit of wages for the period after award dated 31.08.2016 was passed till the date when respondent No.1 was allowed to join in the service, and that too under an application filed under Section 33-C(2) as, only the benefit granted under an award or settlement can be executed under Section 33-C(2) and further, no benefit for which an adjudication is required to be done, can be given on an application filed under Section 33-C(2) hence, the award dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) is bad.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Workman in support of
Under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate claims without prior recognition of entitlement; it can only enforce existing rights.
Award of wages for intervening period – Merely because there was interim order/stay of order of reinstatement during pendency of proceedings, employee-appellant cannot be denied back wages/wages when....
The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding backwages without a pre-existing right, as reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to backwages.
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enforces adjudicated wage claims, without re-examining eligibility; established employer-employee relations must be acknowledged.
The nature of work and substantial compliance with the order of reinstatement are crucial in determining entitlement to back wages under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In the eye of law, there was no distinction between Capital Electronics and Capital Electronics (Howrah) and that all the units were actually different places owned by the same firm. This finding was....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
