Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
NAMOR ALI CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CENTRAL INLAND WATER SPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1977
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 275
ACT:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--Jurisdiction of Labour
Court--Interpretation of section 33C(1) and (2).
HEADNOTE:
The appellants, workmen of the respondent company, filed an
application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, in the Labour Court asking it to compute their
wages due from the respondent on the basis of certain
settlements said to have been arrived at between them and
the management. Holding that each of the workman in the
Assam Sector was also entitled to take advantage of the
settlement between the company and its employees in West
Bengal, the Labour Court allowed their application in part
rejecting only that portion of the claim of the workmen for
Rs.13/- p.m. from Feb. 1971 to Mar., 1972. The Gauhati High
Court allowed the writ application filed by the management
and quashed the order of the Labour Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
HELD : (1) The High Court Committed an error in narrowly
interpreting section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. There are two parts of the ’sub-section (2) of
section 33C of the Act. The first part is concerned with
the money claim simpliciter and the second part speaks about
computation in terms of money of any benefit to which the
workman is entitled. Where any workman is entitled to
receive from employer any money and if any question arises
as to the amount of money due, then the question may be
decided by the Labour Court. The expression "if any
question arises as to the amount of money due" embraces
within its ambit any’ one or more of four kinds of disputes,
namely : (1) Whether there is any settlement or award as,
alleged?, (2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive
from the employer money at all under any settlement or an
award etc. ? (3) If so, what be the rate or quantum of such
amount ? and, (4) Whether the amount claimed is due or not?
A dispute as to all such questions or any of them would
attract the provisions of section 33C (2) of the Act and
make the remedy available to the workman concerned. If the
right to get the money on the basis of the settlement or the
award is not established, no amount of money will be due.
If it is established, then it has to be found out, albeit,
it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
For finding it out, it is not necessary that there should be
a dispute as to the amount of money due also. The fourth
kind of dispute will be covered by phrase "amount of money
due". [207 A, C-H, 208 A]
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. (1964)
3 S.C.R. 140; R. D. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Labour Court Nagpur & Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580; and Sahu
Minerals and Properties Ltd. V. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court and others, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745, followed.
(2)Satisfaction of the appropriate Government which is
spoken of in sub-section (1) of section 33C of the Act in
their prima facie satisfaction when a claim is made by any
workman before the Government for issuance of a certificate
by the Collector for realisation of the amount due. If the
appropriate Government finds that the amount claimed by the
workman is due- and there is no such dispute which needs any
adjudication by the Labour Court in accordance with sub-
section (2) or the dispute raised is not bona fide, then
206
the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount due
to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in
the manner as an arrears of land revenue. [208 D-E]
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda [1962] 2 Suppl.
S.C.R. 977, not applicable.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1578 of 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2-
5-73 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 778 of
1972.
M.K. Ramamurthi, A. K. Ganguly and D. P. Mukherjee for
the Appellants.
Niren De, M. K. Banerjee, S. M. Mandel, A. G. Menesses for
respondent No. 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the
judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated the 2nd
of May, 1973 setting aside the order of the Labour Court,
Gauhati dated the 26th July, 1972. The facts are in a very
narrow compass and the point involved is short.
The appellants, workmen of the, respondent company, filed an
application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, in the
Labour Court asking it to compute their wages due from the
respondent on the basis of certain settlements said to have
been arrived at between them and the management. The Labour
Court allowed their application in part and held that each
of the workman was entitled to get Rs. 849/- from the
respondent company @ Rs. 20/- per month from December, 1969
to March, 1972 and @ Rs. 12/- from March, 1970 to March,
1972. The claim of the workmen for Rs. 13/- per month from
February, 1971 to March, 1972 was rejected by the Labour
Court. The management challenged the order of the Labour
Court in Civil Rule No,. 778 of 1972 by a writ application.
The High Court allowed the application and quashed the order
of the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.
It may be stated here that the only dispute between the
management and the workmen in the proceeding under section
33C(2) of the Act was whether the employees in the Assam
Sector were also entitled to take advantage of the
settlement between the company and its employees in West
Bengal. The quantum or the rate of extra wages to which the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
workmen would have been entitled if the advantages under the
settlement were found available to them was not in dispute.
In that view of the matter, the High Court was of the
opinion, to quote the relevant words from its judgment-
"For conferring jurisdiction on a Labour Court
under section 33C(2), it is not only necessary
that the workmen should be entitled to any
money due but also that there should be a
dispute about the amount of that money. It is
207
clear that there is no dispute with regard to
the amounts of money which have already been
fixed by the settlement. That being the
position, there is no question within the
scope of section 33C(2) for determination by
the Labour Court in this case."
In our judgment the High Court has committed an error in so
narrowly interpreting section 33C(2) of the Act. The said
provision runs as follows-
"Where any workman is entitled to receive from
the employer any money or any benefit which is
capable of being computed in terms of money
and if, any question arises as to the amount
of money due or as to the amount at which such
benefit should be computed, then the question
may, subject to any rules that may be made
under this Act, be decided by such Labour
Court as may be specified in this behalf by
the appropriate Government."
There are two parts of the sub-section as it stands after
its amendment by Act 36 of 1964. The first part is
concerned with the money claim simpliciter and the second
part speaks about computation in terms of money of any
benefit to which the workman is entitled. Although for
appreciation of the point at issue there is no substantial
difference between the two, we shall confine our discussion
to the money claim only pure and simple. On a plain reading
of the wordings of the Statue it would be found that where
any workman is entitled to receive from employer any money
and if any question arises as to the amount of money due,
then the question may be decided by the Labour Court. The
expression "If any question arises as to the amount of money
due" embraces within its ambit any one or more of the
following kinds of, disputes :-
(1) Whether there is any settlement
or award as alleged?
(2) Whether any workman is entitled to
receive from the employer any money at all
under any settlement or an award etc?
(3) If so,, what will be the rate or quantum
of such amount?
(4) Whether the amount claimed is due or
not?
Broadly speaking, these will be the disputes which will be
referable to the question as to the amount of money due. If
the right to get the money on the basis of the settlement or
the award is not established, no amount of money will be
due. If it is established, then it has to be found out,
albeit, it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the
amount due. For finding it out, is not necessary that there
should be a dispute as to the amount of money due also. The
fourth kind of dispute which we have indicated above
obviously and literally will be covered by the
208
phrase "amount of money due." A dispute as to all such
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
questions or any of them would attract the provisions of
section 33C(2) of the Act and make the remedy available to
the workman concerned.
It is not necessary to elaborately discuss the various
authorities of this Court on the point. To our mind the
view we have expressed above is plainly and squarely covered
by the principles of law enunciated by this Court in several
decisions; to wit, The Central Bank of lndia Ltd. v. P. S.
Rajagopalan etc.(1). R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd.
v. Labour Court Nagpur & Ors.(2) and Sahu Minerals and Pro-
perties Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others.
(a)
Learned counsel for the respondent company endeavored to
support the judgment of the High Court with reference to the
provision of sub-section (1) of section 33C of the Act.
Counsel submitted that if there is a dispute as to any
amount due, it is to be decided by the appropriate
Government under the said provision of law and not by the
Labour Court under sub-section (2), which is mainly
concerned with the computation of the amount. Such an
argument is too obviously wrong to be accepted. A detailed
discussion is not necessary to reject it. The ’satisfaction
of the appropriate Government which is spoken of in sub-
section (1) is their prima facie satisfaction when a claim
is made by any workman before the Government for issuance of
a certificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount
due. It the appropriate Government finds that the amount
claimed by the workman is due and there is no such dispute
which needs any adjudication by the Labour Court in
accordance with subsection (2) or the dispute raised is not
bona fide, then the Government shall issue a certificate for
the amount due to the Collector who shall proceed to recover
the same in the manner as an arrears of land revenue. The
decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank Limited v. K.
L. Kharbanda(4) does not help the respondent at all in
support of the interpretation sought to be put by it to
sub--section (1) of section 33C.
For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal with
costs, set aside the order of the High Court and restore
that of the, Labour Court.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 140.
(2) [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580.
(3) A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745.
(4) [1962] 2 Suppl. SC.R. 977.
209