IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 1932 of 2016 CHIEF ENGINEER (GR) MPMKVV. CO. LTD. THR AND OTHERS Versus HARIOM (SWEEPER)

Appearance:

Shri Rajendra Bhargava - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 33(C)-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming wages for the period between August 2008 to June 2012, amounting to Rs.56,400/- has been allowed.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

2​ .1The respondent, claiming himself to have been engaged as a part-time worker by the petitioners since 12.05.1994 and alleging non-payment of wages with effect from August 2008 to June 2012, approached the Labour Court by way of filing an application under Section 33(C)-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming wages for the said period amounting to Rs.56,400/-.

2​ .2On being noticed, the petitioners submitted their reply before the Labour Court, objecting the claim of the respondent on the ground that proceedings under Section 33(C)-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are applicable only for the recovery of dues previously adjudicated under some award or settlement. The claim for the unpaid wages under Section 33(C)-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not maintainable.

2.3The learned Labour Court, after framing issues, called upon the parties to adduce evidence. On the basis of evidence, the Labour Court, while holding the claim made by the respondent to be maintainable, allowed the same vide order dated 04.12.2015. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates his submissions and contends that proceedings under Section 33(C)-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as regards claim for unpaid wages, was not maintainable. He further submits that the respondent workman produced no tangible evidence to substantiate his claim that he had actually worked for a period between August 2008 to June 2012. In the absence of any evidence to the said effect, the claim of the workman could not have been allowed.

4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the application filed before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for claiming unpaid wages for the period in question, was maintainable. He further submits that due evidence was produced by him to establish the factum of his employment for the said period. The evidence produced by the petitioner in rebuttal was found to be not trustworthy. The learned Labour Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, rightly allowed the claim of the respondent vide order dated 04.12.2015.

5. ​In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the respondent places reliance on the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3016 of 1999; Jeet Lal Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr.

6. ​No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

8. This Court has also perused the record of the Labour Court.

9. In view of the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the preliminary issue which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the application filed by the respondent under Section 33(C)-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming wages for the period between August 2008 to June 2012, was maintainable. The reply filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court reflects that the engagement/working of the respondent with the petiti