Claims under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be adjudicated if disputed; must first resolve through Industrial Dispute process.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.22927, 23037, 23042, 23045, 23054, 23079, 23155, 23227, 23229, 23335, 25120, 26408 and 26414 of 2025]

These writ petitions have been filed challenging a common order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in certain claim petitions filed under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1947 Act’) by which the claim petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the ground that since their claims are disputed and since there is nothing to show that the petitioners were covered by the terms of the settlement under which they claim, such claims cannot be adjudicated under (2) of the 1947 Act. The Labour Court also found that the claims have to be raised in terms of the provisions contained in Section 36A of the 1947 Act. It is not disputed before me that the claims under (2) of the 1947 Act were raised based on the terms contained in a Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the workmen and the management, and the right of the petitioners to claim the benefits of the agreement was seriously disputed by the management, as the petitioners had left the services of the company before the date of the agreement.

2. Sri. Gokul Babu S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend inter alia that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits of the long-term agreement under which they claim. It is submitted that since the benefits of an agreement are sought to be enforced, a claim petition under Section 33C (2) of the 1947 Act was maintainable. He referred to the provisions of Sections 12, 18(3)(d), and (2) of the 1947 Act, and to the provisions of the agreement (which is on record as Ext.P4 in W.P (C) 22927/2025) in extenso and attempted to establish that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under the agreement. He placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Anandan P.C. v. Standard Furniture and another , 2013 (3) KHC 83 , to contend that even if the petitioners were not parties to the agreement, they were entitled to its benefits as the trade unions involved were representing all the workers. He submits, lastly, that the finding of the Labour Court that the claim has to be raised in terms of the provisions contained in Section 36A of the 1947 Act is unsustainable in law.

3. On the other hand, Sri. Ajith S., the learned counsel appearing for the Management (English India Clays Limited) in all these cases, would seriously dispute the entitlement of the petitioners in these cases under the agreement. Consequently, it is his submission that since the claim is seriously disputed, a claim petition under Section 33C (2) of the 1947 Act is not maintainable and the petitioners will have to first raise an Industrial Dispute and have their claims adjudicated by the Labour Court/Tribunal in accordance with the law. He refers to Clause 1.7 of Ext.P4 document in W.P (C) 22927/2025 (the agreement dated 01.02.2020) to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the agreement. According to him, the wording of Clause 1.7 of Ext.P4 document in W.P (C) 22927/2025 shows that the agreement applies only to persons on the payroll of the company on the date of the agreement, which is 01.02.2020. He also submitted that it is the admitted case of the petitioners in their evidence before the Labour Court that the Trade Unions that were parties to the agreement did not represent them.

4. Having considered the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out a case for interf