Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHAIL JAIN, J.

Allahabad Bank – Petitioner
Versus
R.S. Saini – Respondent
W.P.(C) 7096 of 2007
Decided On : 12-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar and Mr. Sourabh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Ankit Bhadaria, Mr Umesh Singh and Ms. Karishma, Adv. with respondent in person.

Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is restricted to the computation of pre-existing or adjudicated rights. It cannot be invoked to resolve disputed questions of entitlement, which remain the sole province of industrial adjudication under Section 10 of the Act.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - Constitution of India - Article 226/227 - Claim for monetary benefits - Scope of execution powers - A Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) acts as an executing court - It is not competent to arbitrate upon the merits of a disputed entitlement which has not been previously adjudicated upon, recognised, or established - Such disputed claims regarding the existence of a right fall within the exclusive domain of an industrial tribunal under Section 10 of the Act for adjudication. (Paras 17, 21, 23, 29)

(B) Supervisory Jurisdiction - High Court power - Scope of interference - Restricted to cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error - The High Court does not act as an appellate authority and cannot substitute its own view for that of the adjudicatory body. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
A retired employee claimed remuneration for acting as a representative in internal departmental proceedings. The employer challenged the claim, arguing that the cessation of the employer-employee relationship extinguished such benefits and that the industry-level settlement specifically excluded such payments under the prevailing circumstances. The lower labour forum allowed the claim, prompting the employer to move the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Labour Court, by entertaining a claim where the very foundation of the entitlement was in dispute, exceeded its jurisdiction. Because the entitlement to the claimed benefit post-retirement remained contested and had never been previously adjudicated, the proceedings under the relevant section were not maintainable.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of a claim under the execution provision of the legislation in the absence of a pre-existing adjudicated right, and whether a retired individual could claim benefits as a representative for departmental enquiries.

Ratio Decidendi: The legislative provision for recovery is limited to the computation of money or benefits where the entitlement is already established. It cannot be used as a substitute for adjudication to decide disputed legal rights, as such an interpretation would usurp the role of an industrial tribunal and contravene the structure of the industrial dispute resolution process.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order of the labour forum set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding retired employee's claim for ta/da as defense assistant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions regarding employer-employee relationship and settlement applicability for defence assistant claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. section 33c(2) of the industrial disputes act is solely for execution and lacks jurisdiction for primary adjudication of disputed rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. quashing of labour court findings due to inherent lack of jurisdiction under section 33c(2). (Para 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

SHAIL JAIN, J.

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Findings dated 28th March, 2007, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II ("CGIT-II" or "the learned Tribunal") in Labour Court Application No. 17 of 2003 ("LCA No. 17/2003"), whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the claim of the Respondent and directed the Petitioner-Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 16,500/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the Respondent as Travelling Allowance ("TA").

2. The present Petition arises from a claim preferred by the Respondent/Workman under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act"), seeking payment of TA/DA for attending departmental enquiry proceedings in his capacity as a Defence Assistant ("DA"). The dispute centres on whether the Respondent remained entitled to such payments after the cessation of his employment with the Petitioner/Bank.

3. The Petitioner Bank, aggrieved by the Findings dated 28th March, 2007, passed by the learned Tribunal allowing the claim of the Respondent, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking quashing of the impugned Findings.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The brief factual background leading to the filing of the present Petition is set out hereunder:

A. The Petitioner is a bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, with branches across India.

B. The Respondent/Workman was an employee of the Petitioner/Bank and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to which two punishments were imposed upon him vide Orders dated 29th November, 2001.

C. It is stated that the Petitioner/Bank had also issued Charge Sheets to two other employees, namely Sh. A.S. Arora (Computer Operator) and Sh. B.S. Verma (Head Cashier). The Respondent acted as a Defence Assistant for the said employees during the course of departmental enquiry proceedings.

D. At the time of initiation of the said enquiry proceedings, the Respondent was in the employment of the Petitioner/Bank. He had been attending the enquiry proceedings as a Defence Assistant in the matter of the departmental enquiry initiated against Sh. A.S. Arora (Computer Operator) and Sh. B.S. Verma (Head Cashier), with the due permission of the Disciplinary Authority in each case. However, during the pendency of these enquiry proceedings, the Respondent retired from service on 30th November, 2001.

E. The Respondent continued to be paid TA/DA/conveyance for some time following his retirement, and thereafter, without any formal communication, the Petitioner ceased to make such payments.

F. Aggrieved by the non-payment of TA/DA following his superannuation, the Respondent filed a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Act in LCA No. 17/2003 before the CGIT-II, Delhi, claiming amounts towards TA/DA/conveyance for attending the enquiry proceedings as a Defence Assistant. The total amount claimed before the learned Labour Court was Rs. 14,280/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty only).

G. The Petitioner/Management contested the said claim by filing a Written Statement, contending, inter alia:

a. that the Respondent was not entitled to TA/DA in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002, which provided that a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISHAIL JAIN, J. Allahabad Bank – PetitionerVersusR.S. Saini – RespondentW.P.(C) 7096 of 2007Decided On : 12-05-2026

Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is restricted to the computation of pre-existing or adjudicated rights. It cannot be invoked to resolve disputed questions of entitlement, which remain the sole province of industrial adjudication under Section 10 of the Act.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHAIL JAIN, J.

Allahabad Bank – Petitioner
Versus
R.S. Saini – Respondent
W.P.(C) 7096 of 2007
Decided On : 12-05-2026