Section 17(2) Labour Court can determine incidental questions of category, cadre and nature of work while computing benefits due under notified wage board recommendations.

ORDER :

B. PUGALENDHI, J.

The writ petitioners before this court is the Newspaper Management. The respondents are workers who were employed under the writ petitioner Management and have retired from service.

2. The respondents/employees have filed applications before the Labour Court, Madurai, under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (conditions of service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 45 of 1955) that they are entitled for more benefits as per the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board and Manisana Wage Board. The petitioner Management has raised a preliminary issue before the Labour Court in the applications filed by the respondents/employees that their cadre and category under the Wage Board and date of promotion are disputed by the petitioner management and hence,the issue cannot be decided by the Labour Court while dealing with an application filed under Section 17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955. Further, the petitioner Management also claims that the recommendations of the Wage Board is not an award and therefore, there is no pre-existing right and since the category/ cadre of the workmen is disputed by the Management, it has to be decided by raising a separate industrial dispute.

3. The interlocutory applications filed by the Management raising preliminary objection were rejected by the Labour Court, Madurai, by the impugned orders dated 26.02.2020 that the Wage Board's recommendation has been notified by the Government and the contentions raised by the Management in the interlocutory applications can also be decided while deciding the applications filed under Section 17(2) of the Act 45 of 1955. Aggrieved by the orders of the Labour Court, Madurai, dated 26.02.2020, separate writ petitions have been filed by the Management and all these writ petitions have been tagged together, since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common and therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

4. The main contentions of the petitioner Newspaper Management are summarized as follows:

(i) The claims are being made by the respondents/workmen from the year 1998 onwards and the respondents/workmen have already been paid with benefits at the time of their superannuation. Therefore, the present claims have been made by the respondents/workmen with delay and such claims cannot be entertained by the Labour Court.

(ii) The claims made by the workmen that they belong to a higher cadre/ category cannot be decided under Section 17(2) of the Act. Section 17(2) of the Act is akin to an execution petition filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of such an application is limited and the Labour Court cannot decide on matters regarding the entitlement or right to a higher grade or post. In order to establish the same, an