Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Chandra And Another – Respondent
Writ C No.61111 of 2012
Decided on : 22-04-2024
INTEREST - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, SECTION 33C(2) - The court examined the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which governs the recovery of money due to a workman from an employer. The court interpreted that the Labour Court's role is limited to determining the amount due and does not extend to awarding interest, as the provisions are framed in the context of execution proceedings. The court emphasized that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate on matters beyond the scope of existing rights and that awarding interest is not provided for under Section 33C(2). This interpretation influenced the court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's order granting interest.
Fact of the Case:
Mahesh Chandra, an Assistant Store Keeper, retired in 1997 but faced delays in receiving his retiral dues due to outstanding amounts against him. He filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking payment of dues, and the Labour Court awarded him interest on the delayed payment, which was contested by the employer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding interest under Section 33C(2). It clarified that the provisions of Section 33C are meant for execution of dues and do not include the authority to grant interest.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court has the authority to award interest in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that proceedings under Section 33C(2) are execution proceedings and do not permit the awarding of interest, as this is not provided for in the statute. The Labour Court's role is limited to determining the amount due, and it cannot adjudicate on matters beyond its scope.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Labour Court's order granting interest and allowed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed questioning the legality of order dated 02.05.2012 passed by Labour Court, Agra in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as “Act, 1947”), on the ground that the Labour Court was not competent to award interest in the said proceedings.
2. Facts leading to filing of writ petition are that opposite party no. 1, Mahesh Chandra was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper on 01.05.1966 by Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Commission at Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.1997. Provisional pension was sanctioned by Executive Engineer, Aligarh on 29.01.1997 subject to adjustment from his final pension by the Board. Before retirement, the Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh sent a letter to Executive Engineer, Electricity Store Division, Gandhi Nagar, Agra and also to respondent no. 1 about No Dues Certificate and E.P.F. Certificate. On 24.06.1997, Executive Engineer, Agra informed that total dues against respondent no. 1 was Rs.27,38,504/-. Thereafter, a detailed report was submitted by Executive Engineer, Vidyut Bhandar Khand, Agra on 21.07.1999 before Superintending Engineer regarding No Dues Certificate. The Executive Engineer, Vidyut Bhandar Khand, Agra informed the Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh that there is dues of Rs.7,110/- against respondent no. 1. Due to aforesaid reasons, the retiral dues of respondent no. 1 was not paid within time by Department. Respondent no. 1, in the year 2000, filed an application under Section 33C(2) before respondent no. 2. A reply was filed by petitioner who contested the application on the ground that Labour Court could not award interest. By order impugned dated 02.05.2012, the Labour Court directed for payment of 18% interest in delay payment of pension, Provident Fund and leave encashment and also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- for expenses of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in proceedings under Section 33C(2) only the execution of award or settlement has to be done, and the workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. The Labour Court does not have power to grant interest. According to him, as there was outstanding balance against respondent no. 1 and No Dues Certificate was not provided, there was delay in payment of the retiral dues which were however paid to respondent no. 1 once No Dues Certificate was received. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court rendered in case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another, (2022) 5 SCC 629 and judgment of Apex Court rendered in case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and another, (1995) 1 SCC 235 and also judgment of Apex Court rendered in case of Union of India and another vs. Kankuben and others, (2006) 9 SCC 292.
4. Opposing the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submitted that the delay in payment of retiral dues was from petitioner’s side. According to him, the entire amount should have been paid when respondent no. 1 retired on 31.01.1997. The payment was made after a lapse of three years and Labour Court had rightly awarded interest. He has relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of Phool Mohammad vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution & another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1722 and judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15945 of 2011, M.M. Joseph vs. Labour Court, decided on 13.03.2015.
5. According to him, the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) exercises power akin to an execution court as contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The short question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the interest
The Labour Court lacks the authority to award interest in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as such provisions are not included in the statutory framework governi....
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.
Employees are entitled to claim interest on delayed payment of overtime wages under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the delay is not their fault and the cause of action arose....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, requires a pre-existing right or an award passed by a competent cou....
Section 33(C)(1) of I.D.Act deals with situation where money is due to a workman under a settlement or an award.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited to the recovery of money due to a Workman from....
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
