Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers.

Headnote:
BONUS SCHEME - COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND AND BONUS SCHEMES ACT, 1948 - SECTION 1, 9-A - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33-C(2) - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - SCOPE OF SECTION 33-C(2) - INTERPRETATION - CLAIMS UNDER STATUTE OR SCHEME - LIMITATION - EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE FOR BONUS - EXCEPTIONS - DOMESTIC SERVANTS - NATURE OF WORK - QUANTUM OF RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:

Workmen of the Appellant-company claimed bonus under the Scheme framed by the Central Government under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 46 of 1948 and railway fares and leave wages under the award of the Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes). The Central Government Labour Court at Dhanbad allowed their claim under Section 33-C (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant-company challenged the correctness of the Labour Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:

The Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the benefit provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remains to be computed falls under sub-section (2). The claims were not barred by limitation or laches as Section 33-C(2) does not lay down any limitation period. The respondents-workmen were not employed as domestic servants or exclusively engaged on domestic or personal work, and therefore the exception under Section 1 of the Bonus Scheme did not apply. The Labour Court was justified in awarding the claim of the workmen in full, both as regards bonus and railway fares and leave wages, as the Company did not dispute the quantum of relief claimed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to try the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the applications were barred by limitation or laches? 3. Whether the respondents-workmen were entitled to bonus under the Scheme as they were employed as domestic servants and were performing domestic and personal work? 4. Whether the Labour Court was right in awarding the claim of the workmen in full, both as regards bonus and railway fares and leave wages?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a provision in the nature of an executing provision and takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. 2. The scope of Section 33-C(2) is wider than that of Section 33-C(1) and is not confined to cases arising under an award, settlement or under the provisions of Chapter V-A. Therefore, a benefit provided by a statute or a Scheme made thereunder, without there being anything contrary under such statute or Section 33-C(2), can fall within sub-section (2). 3. There is no justification in inducting a period of limitation provided in the Limitation Act into the provisions of Section 33-C(2) which do not lay down any limitation. 4. To render an employee ineligible for bonus under the exception in Section 1 of the Bonus Scheme, both the capacity and the nature of work are relevant factors. Even though an employee is employed as a mali, a sweeper or a domestic servant, if he does non-domestic or non-personal work, he will be entitled to bonus.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Judgement

SHELAT, J. : These appeals by special leave arise out of applications filed by workmen of the Appellant-company claiming bonus under the Scheme framed by the Central Government under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 46 of 1948 and railway fares and leave wages under the award of the Industrial Tribunal (Colliery Disputes) which came into effect as from February 22, 1954. The Central Government Labour Court at Dhanbad allowed their claim under Section 33-C (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Mr. Gokhale for the appellant-company challenged the correctness of the Labour Court s decision and raised the following contentions :-

(1) that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try these applications under Section 33-C (2) :

(a) because Section 33-C (2) contemplates recovery of money payable under an award, settlement or under the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act only and not under any other statute or scheme framed thereunder;

(b) that under Section 33-C (2) the benefit capable of being computed in terms of money is a non-monetary benefit and not a claim for money itself; and

(c) that the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) being in the nature of execution proceedings substantial questions between an employer and his employee cannot be adjudicated by the Labor Court under this Section;

(2) that in any case these applications were barred by limitation prescribed by the said bonus Scheme and/or due to laches on the part of the respondents;

(3) that under the said Scheme the respondents are not entitled to bonus as they were employed as domestic servant and were during the relevant period performing domestic and personal work, and

(4) that the direction to pay bonus for the period prior to the dates on which these respondents were employed was invalid.

3. The contention as-to jurisdiction of the Labour Court depends on the true construction of Section 33-C (2) as it stood in 1962 when these applications were filed and before its amendment by Act 36 of 1964. Section 33-C (2) has so far been the subject matter of decision by this Court in three cases, viz., Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Kharbanda, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 977 Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan, 1964-3 SCR 140 and Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, 1964-3 SCR 709

4. The following propositions on the question as to the scope of Section 33-C (2) are deducible from these three decisions : -

(1) The legislative history indicates that the legislature after providing broadly for the investigation and settlement of disputes on the basis of collective bargaining, recognised the need of individual workmen of a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights and therefore inserted Section 33A in 1950 and Section 33-C in 1956. These two Sections illustrate cases in which individual workmen can enforce their rights without having to take recourse to Sec. 10 (1) and without having to depend on their union to espouse their case.

(2) In view of this history two considerations are relevant while construing the scope of Section 33-C. Where industrial disputes arise between workmen acting collectively and their employers such disputes must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Act, as for instance under Section 10 (1). But having regard to the legislative policy to provide a speedy remedy to individual workmen for enforcing their existing rights, it would not be reasonable to exclude their existing rights sought to be implemented by individual workman. Therefore though in determining the scope of Section 33-C care should be taken not to exclude cases which legitimately fall within its purview, cases which fall, for instance under Section 10 (1), cannot be brought under Section 33C.

(3) Section 33-C which is in terms similar to those in Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act l950 is a provision in the nature of an executing provision;

(4) Section 33-C (1) applies to cases where money is due to a work

Click Here to Read the rest of this document