Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
2005:BHC-AS:839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2353 OF 2003
WRIT PETITION NO.2353 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.2353 OF 2003
1. M/s.Central Group, )
2. Shri Dinesh Chunilal Jain, )
3. Shri Lalit Chunilal Jain, )
4. Shri C.S.Jain, )
5. Smt.V.C.Jain, )
All residing at Behind )
Rameshwar Mandir, Kaneri, )
Agra Road, Bhiwandi, )
District - Thane. ).. Petitioners
Vs.
Shri Motiram S.Thakare, )
Through United Mazdoor Union, )
Sampat Maruti Tupe Building, )
2nd Floor, Behind Balsara Co., )
Kisan Nagar-2, Wagle Estate, )
Thane - 400 604. ).. Respondent
--
Shri S.M.Oak for the petitioners.
Shri I.R.Kulkarni for the respondent.
--
AND AND AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7458 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.7458 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.7458 OF 2004
1. M/s.Steelite Engg.Limited, )
A Public Limited Company, )
Registered under the Provisions )
of the Companies Act, 1956 )
having its office at Plot No.B-6)
Road No.8, Wagle Estate, )
Thane - 400 604. )
2. Shri Nikhil Mahendra Shah, )
Age -Adult, Occupation-Business,)
3. Shri Mahendra Popatlal Shah, )
Age-Adult, Occupation-Business, )
Nos.2 and 3 having their office )
at Plot No.B-6, Road No.8, )
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 2 -
Wagle Estate, Thane- 400 604. )..Petitioners
(Org.Opponents)
Versus
Shri Gupteshwar Rama Singh, )
Age-Adult, Occupation-Service, )
C/o.United Mazdoor Union, )
Sampat Maruti Tupe Building, )
2nd Floor, Behind Basara Company, )
Kisan Nagar No.2, Wagle Estate, )
Thane - 400 604. )..Respondent
(Org.Applicant)
--
Shri Madhav Jamdar for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Pendse for the respondent.
--
CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J
DATED : 19th JANUARY, 2005.
JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT:
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is
made returnable forthwith, in both the petitions.
2. The following common questions of law arise
for determination in both these petitions :-
1. Whether the Labour Court can entertain
the application under Section 33C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the
absence of relationship of the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 3 -
employer-employee between the parties to
the proceedings ?
2. Whether the Labour Court is entitled to
decide the issue as to whether there
exists relationship of the
employer-employee between the parties as
an incidental issue to the main
proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
hereinafter called as "the said Act."?
3. Placing reliance in the decisions of the Apex
Court in the matters of The Central Bank of India Ltd. The Central Bank of India Ltd. The Central Bank of India Ltd.
v. P.S.Rajagopalan etc., reported in AIR 1964 SC 743,
v. P.S.Rajagopalan etc., v. P.S.Rajagopalan etc.,
the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited
v. The Workmen and Anr., v. The Workmen and Anr., reported in (1974) 4 SCC v. The Workmen and Anr.,
696, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh
Razak and Another, Razak and Another, reported in (1995)1 SCC 235 as well
Razak and Another,
as Tara and Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare & Ors., Tara and Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare & Ors., Tara and Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare & Ors.,
reported in (1998)8 SCC 671, the learned advocates for
the petitioners submitted that when the claimant’s
status as the workman itself is denied by the
opponents in the proceedings initiated by the claimant
under Section 33C(2) of the said Act, the Labour Court
is not entitled to decide the issue regarding status
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 4 -
of the claimant as that of the workman under the said
Act as an incidental issue to the main issue relating
to the entitlement for the amount claimed by him and
the Labour Court having totally ignored this well
settled law has acted illegally while passing the
impugned orders, and therefore, the same warrant
interference.
4. The learned advocates for the respondents, on
the other hand, placing reliance in the decision in
the matter of R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.Ltd. v. R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.Ltd. v. R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.Ltd. v.
The Labour Court, Nagpur & Ors., The Labour Court, Nagpur & Ors., reported in 1972 I The Labour Court, Nagpur & Ors.,
LLJ 231, a decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors., reported in 1975 Mh.L.J. 212 as well as of
& Ors., & Ors.,
unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in Writ Petition No.1041 of 2004 in the
matter of M/s.Central Grop & Ors. v. Narayan M/s.Central Grop & Ors. v. Narayan M/s.Central Grop & Ors. v. Narayan
Gangaram Patil, Gangaram Patil, delivered on 9th June, 2004, have
Gangaram Patil,
submitted that the dispute in relation to the status
of the claimant is an incidental one to the main issue
of entitlement of the amount claimed, and therefore,
is not outside the scope of the proceedings under
Section 33C(2) of the said Act. Hence, no fault can
be found with the impugned order.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 5 -
5. Section 33C of the said Act deals with the
subject of recovery of money due from an employee.
Sub-section (1) thereof relates to the recovery of
money due under or in respect of an award or
settlement or lay off, retrenchment or closure
compensation. Sub-section (2) thereof, with which we
are concerned in the matter in hand, provides that
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 the said Act, be decided by such Labour
Court.
6. Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules 1957, relates to the procedure pertaining to the
application for recovery of dues under Section 33-C of
the said Act. Sub-rule (1) thereof relates to the
application under Section 33-C(1) whereas sub-rule (2)
thereof relates to the application under section
33-C(2). The said sub-rule (2) provides that where
any workman or a group of workmen is entitled to
receive from the employer any money or any benefit
which is capable of being computed in terms of money,
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 6 -
the workmen or the group of workmen, as the case may
be, may apply to the specified Labour Court in Form
K-3 for the determination of the amount due, or as the
case may be, the amount at which such benefit should
be computed. The prescribed Form K-3 reads thus:-
"Before the Central Government Labour Court at
_________between______________and __________
(1) Name of the applicant(s)
(2) Name of the employer
The petitioner(s)_______________ a workman of
____________M/s._______________of ___________
is/are entitled to receive from the said
M/s.___________the money/benefits mentioned in
the statement hereto annexed.
It is prayed that the court be pleased to
determine the amount/amounts due to the
petitioner(s).
Signature or Thumb-
Impression(s) of
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 7 -
the applicant(s) Address(es)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Station :
Date : "
7. Plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section
33-C of the said Act clearly reveals that where any
workman is entitled to receive from his employer any
money or other benefits which are capable of being
calculated in terms of money, but the question arises
as to the quantum of such money or the money value, as
the case may be, due from the employer on account of
such entitlement to the workman, then the said
question relating to quantum of the amount of money or
the money value can be decided by the Labour Court in
exercise of its powers under the said provision of
law. Rule 62(2) of the said Rules, which provides the
procedure in that regard, requires the workman to file
the application in the form K-3 as prescribed under
the said Rules. The said form also clearly reveals
that the relief which is to be sought in terms of
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 8 -
Section 33-C(2) of the said Act is for determination
of the amount due. In other words, it relates to the
calculation of the amount of money due to the workman
on account of his entitlement for the same. The scope
of procedure under Section 33-C(2), however, does not
relate to the dispute pertaining to the entitlement of
the dues but it is restricted to the dispute
pertaining to the calculation and qualification of the
dues in terms of the entitlement already established
on adjudication of that dispute by the competent
authority. Besides, such claim for calculation of the
money due has necessarily to be between the employer
and the employee, whose relation of that nature must
be either undisputed or undisputable.
8. In fact, the scope of powers of the Labour
Court under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 had been the subject matter for discussion
in number of cases. The Apex Court in Central Bank of Central Bank of
Central Bank of
India’s case (supra) India’s case (supra) dealing with the scope of Section India’s case (supra)
33C(2) of the said Act held that the only point which
the Labour Court can determine is one in relation to
the computation of the benefit in terms of money.
Further, considering the possibility of an employer
merely denying the claim and raising dispute in that
regard with a view to oust the jurisdiction of the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 9 -
Labour Court, it was observed that "before proceeding
to compute the benefit in terms of money the Labour
Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to
whether the workman has a right to receive that
benefit. If the said right is not disputed, nothing
more needs to be done and the Labour Court can proceed
to compute the value of the benefit in terms of money;
but if the said right is disputed, the Labour Court
must deal with that question and decide whether the
workman has the right to receive the benefit as
alleged by him and it is only if the Labour Court
answers this point in favour of the workman that the
next question of making the necessary computation can
arise." It was further ruled that "the claim under
Section 33C(2) clearly postulates that the
determination of the question about computing the
benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to
be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the
right and such an enquiry must be held to be
incidental to the main determination which has been
assigned to the Labour Court by sub-sec.(2)." While
describing the powers under Section 33C(2) of the said
Act to be like those of the Executing Court, it was
observed that "it is open to the Executing Court to
interpret the decree for the purpose of execution. It
is, of course, true that the executing Court cannot go
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 10 -
behind the decree, nor can it add to or subtract from
the provision of the decree. These limitations apply
also to the Labour Court; but like the executing
Court, the Labour Court would also be competent to
interpret the award or settlement on which a workman
bases his claim under S.33C(2)." At the same time, it
was ruled that "if an employee is dismissed or demoted
and it is his case that the dismissal or demotion is
wrongful, it would not be open to him to make a claim
for recovery of his salary or wages under
Sec.33-C(2)".
9. In Central Inland Water Transport Central Inland Water Transport Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation’s case (supra), Corporation’s case (supra), the Apex Court while Corporation’s case (supra),
dealing with the comparison between the powers of the
Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the said Act
and of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the
said Act, it was held that under Section 10, the
Tribunal would necessarily go into a detail
investigation of the alleged right of the employees to
be continued in service by the employer and would give
relief in several forms depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case and even direct
re-employment with or without continuity of service
and further direct payment of wages fully or
partially, however, none of these things can be done
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 11 -
by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the said
Act and all it can do is to compute the benefit if
there is already an adjudication in favour of the
workman against the employer. It was further held
that "it would be impossible for the Labour Court to
compute any benefit unless the Court, after
considering all the matters which an Industrial
Tribunal has to consider, ultimately decides upon one
or the other of the several alternative reliefs which
the Industrial Tribunal alone has a right to
determine. By saying that the Labour Court would
determine the alternative reliefs as ‘incidental’ to
computation, one cannot conceal the fact that it is
actually exercising the function of an Industrial
Tribunal. The investigation is not ‘incidental’ to
computation , but the computation itself is
consequential upon the main finding as to the nature
of relief the workmen are entitled to in an industrial
dispute."
10. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s case Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s case Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s case
(supra), (supra), there was no prior adjudication by any forum (supra),
regarding the claim of the workmen regarding the wages
to be paid at the same rate at which regular workmen
of the establishment were being paid, neither there
was any award or settlement to that effect, the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 12 -
question was whether in those circumstances, the
proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages
claimed by the workmen were maintainable under Section
33C(2) of the said Act? After taking into
consideration the decisions of the Apex Court in
Central Bank of India’s case (supra) Central Bank of India’s case (supra) and Central Central Bank of India’s case (supra) Central Central
Inland Water Transport Corporation’s case (supra), Inland Water Transport Corporation’s case (supra), as Inland Water Transport Corporation’s case (supra),
well as Bombay Gas Co.Ltd. v. Gopal Ghiva, Bombay Gas Co.Ltd. v. Gopal Ghiva, ( AIR Bombay Gas Co.Ltd. v. Gopal Ghiva,
1964 SC 752) and Chief Mining Engineer, East India Chief Mining Engineer, East India Chief Mining Engineer, East India
Coal Co.Ltd. v. Rameswar, Coal Co.Ltd. v. Rameswar, (AIR 1968 SC 218), it was Coal Co.Ltd. v. Rameswar,
held that "the ratio of these decisions clearly
indicates that where the very basis of the claim or
the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is
disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or
recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute
relating to entitlement is not incidental to the
benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the
scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first
decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to
compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in
exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act. It only when the entitlement has been earlier
adjudicated or recognised by the employer and
thereafter for the purpose of implementation or
enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 13 -
interpretation that the interpretation is treated as
incidental t the Labour Court’s power under Section
33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court’s power to
interpret the decree for the purpose of its
execution."
11. In Tara’s case (supra) Tara’s case (supra), reiterating the ruling Tara’s case (supra)
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s case (supra)
and in the case where the status of the claimants as
Anganwadi helpers was disputed, it was held that "this
is obvious from the fact that the status and nature of
employment of the appellants is itself disputed and
unless there is a prior adjudication on merits of the
status which is the foundation for making the claim
for wages at the specified rates, the question f
moving an application under Section 33-C(2) for
computation of the wages does not arise."
12. Obviously, the ratio of all the relevant
decisions on the point in issue was clearly culled out
by the Apex Court itself in Municipal Corporation of Municipal Corporation of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi’s case (supra) Delhi’s case (supra) and it clearly clarifies the Delhi’s case (supra)
limited scope of the powers of the Labour Court in the
proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the said Act and
that it relates merely to the computation of the dues
based on prior adjudication or recognized or
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 14 -
undisputed right of the employee and not otherwise and
the power to deal with the incidental issues relates
to interpretation of settlement or award arrived at
the conclusion of such recognition or adjudication of
the claim of the employee. But the Labour Court does
not enjoy the power to decide about the status of the
claimants approaching the Labour Court under the said
provisions of law, nor the issue in relation to the
status of the claimants can be said to be an
incidental one.
13. It is to be noted that in Back’s Law
Dictionary, Vth Edition, the term "incidental" has
been defined to mean that "depending upon or
appertaining to something else as primary; something
necessary, appertaining to, or depending upon another
which is termed the principal, something incidental to
the main purpose". The expression "incidental powers"
therefore would mean those powers which a statute may
confer upon the authority or the tribunal as are
directly and immediately appropriate to the execution
of the powers expressly granted to it and exist only
to enable the authority to carry out the purpose of
its creation. The expression "ancillary jurisdiction"
is defined to mean the power of the Court to
adjudicate and determine the matters incidental to the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 15 -
exercise of its primary jurisdiction of an action,
whereas, the expression "ancillary proceedings" has
been defined to mean growing out of or auxiliary to
another action or sue or which is subordinate to or
aid the primary action either at law or equity." In
other words, the incidental issue can never be one
which is in the form of "prelude" to the main issue
but it has to be of the nature of "sequel" of the main
issue. It has to be essentially so subordinate to or
less important than or dependent on the main issue and
not vice-versa. The issue relating to the status of
the claimant as the workman is not dependent upon the
issue of entitlement of the amount and on the
contrary, the issue relating to entitlement of amount
claimed depends upon the status of the claimant as
that of the workman.
14. Considering the provisions of law, the scope
of powers of the Court under Section 33-C(2) of the
said Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court,
therefore, it is apparent that the issue relating to
the status of the claimant as being the workman or
employee of the opponents in such proceedings cannot
be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court in such
proceedings on the assumption that such an issue is an
incidental issue. In fact, the existence of
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 16 -
employer-employee relationship is a jurisdictional
fact, the existence of which is very much essential
for the Labour Court to assume jurisdiction to deal
with the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the said
Act. In the absence of such jurisdictional fact i.e.
the existence of relationship of the employer-employee
between the opponents and the claimant respectively,
in such proceedings, either established in any other
earlier proceedings or is not disputed or is not
disputable on the face of the records, certainly the
Labour Court would be entitled to deal with the claim
under Section 33C(2) and not otherwise.
15. Undoubtedly, the Division Bench in Ramakrishna Ramakrishna Ramakrishna
Ramnath’s case (supra), while dealing with the issue
Ramnath’s case (supra) Ramnath’s case (supra)
as to whether the Labour Court can go into the
question whether the claimant before it is a workman
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Act
held that "it will be competent for the Labour Court
under Section 33C(2) to inquire into the question
whether the person invoking its jurisdiction is a
‘workman’ or not within the meaning of the said Act."
However, in view of the Apex Court’s decision in
Tara’s case (supra) Tara’s case (supra) on the point in issue, the Tara’s case (supra)
decision in Ramakrishna Ramnath’s case (supra) Ramakrishna Ramnath’s case (supra) can no Ramakrishna Ramnath’s case (supra)
more be said to be laying down the correct proposition
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 17 -
of law.
16. The decision in R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Mills’ R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Mills’ R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Mills’
case (supra) case (supra) is not on the point in issue. Therein it case (supra)
was ruled that the Labour Court’s jurisdiction could
not be ousted by a mere plea denying the workmen’s
claim to the compensation of the benefit in terms of
money, and the Labour Court had to go into the
question and determine whether on the facts, it had
jurisdiction to make the computation. At the same
time, it was observed that "It could not, however,
give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision on the
jurisdiction plea." In other words, the Labour Court
does enjoy jurisdiction to decide about the
computation of the amount due to the workmen while
dealing with the matter under Section 33C(2) but under
the guise of determining the issue relating to
computation of amount due, it cannot decide about the
status of the claimant as being workmen.
17. The decision in Narayan Gangaram Patil’s case Narayan Gangaram Patil’s case Narayan Gangaram Patil’s case
apart from a bald statement denying employer-employee
relationship, the pleadings and materials on record
did not disclose severe dispute about the existence of
such relationship as well as right of the workmen. In
any case, the point regarding absence of jurisdiction
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 18 -
to decide the issue relating to the status of the
applicant as workman while dealing with the
application under Section 33C(2) has been well settled
by the above referred decisions of the Apex Court.
18. It is, therefore, to be held that the Labour
Court while dealing with the application under Section
33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot
deal with the issue relating to the status of the
applicant as the workman and such an issue is not an
incidental issue in such proceedings but it relates to
jurisdictional fact and in the absence of such
jurisdictional fact, the Court is not empowered to
entertain the application under Section 33C(2) of the
said Act.
19. At the same time, it is to be noted that
merely because the status has been disputed, that by
itself will not oust the jurisdiction to entertain the
application under Section 33C(2). In each case, the
Labour Court will have to see whether there is dispute
about the status of the applicant as workman and if
the materials placed before it disclose either no such
dispute exists or at any stage there was admission in
that regard by the employer or adjudication of such
issue by the competent Court and yet it is sought to
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 19 -
be disputed, certainly in that case it would cease to
be the main issue and on the contrary in those
circumstances there would be an occasion to deal with
the same as an incidental issue, since it would be the
case of mere attempt to non-suit the applicant on an
issue which does not exist for adjudication between
the parties.
20. The facts of the case in Writ Petition No.2353
of 2003 reveal that the Labour Court has by its order
dated 18th November, 2002, directed the petitioners to
pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.1,83,631/-
towards overtime wages, leave wages and bonus to the
respondent. The respondent claiming to be the
employee of the petitioner-company filed the
application under Section 33C(2) of the said Act being
Application (IDA) No.212 of 1999. It is the case of
the respondent that even though he was employed with
the petitioners on agreement to render services for 8
hours per day on monthly wages of Rs.1900/- he was
made to work for 12 hours per day without any payment
for overtime service rendered by him, and that he was
not granted other benefits like leave wages and bonus.
The petitioners contested the proceedings by filing
written statement inter alia raising the plea that
there was no employer employee relationship between
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 20 -
the petitioners and the respondent and that therefore
the application under Section 33C(2) of the said Act
was not maintainable. The Labour Court, after hearing
the parties, however, rejected the contention of the
petitioners and held that the Labour Court has
jurisdiction to decide the incidental question
relating to the relationship of the employer-employee
between the opponents and the applicant in the
proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the said Act and
in the facts of the case, such relationship being
established, the petitioners are liable to pay the
amount as directed under the impugned order.
21. Apparently there was not a mere denial of
employer-employee relationship but also the very right
to claim the dues and benefits was disputed and
denied. Obviously, the claim of the respondent was in
the capacity as the employee of the petitioners and
further that he was made to work for 12 hours per day
contrary to the terms of employment and on that count
being entitled to claim the overtime wages and
secondly that no leave wages and bonus were paid. The
said claim was specifically denied by the petitioners.
Undisputedly, the respondent apart from bare claim in
respect of being employed for 12 hours or that on that
count no dues were paid or that no leave wages or
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 21 -
bonus were paid, no material in support of such claim
was produced either along with the application or even
during the investigation. When the very claim was
denied and the applicant was not able to place on
record any material in support of such claim, it was
apparent that the very right to claim dues and
benefits was in dispute and admittedly there was no
prior adjudication in respect thereof, nor any
settlement or admission on the part of the petitioners
placed on record. Obviously, therefore, in terms of
law on the point, the Labour Court could not have
proceeded to adjudicate the issue relating to the
status of the applicant and also regarding the right
of the respondent, as the same was squarely beyond the
scope of powers of the Labour Court under Section
33-C(2) of the said Act. Besides, the Labour Court
also erred in holding that such issues are incidental
to the main issue under section 33-C(2). Hence, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be
set aside, and the application under Section 33-C(2)
of the said Act is liable to be dismissed.
22. In the Writ Petition No.7458 of 2004 are that
the petitioners challenge the order dated 23rd June,
2004 passed by the Labour Court in similar application
under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act. The said
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 22 -
Application being No.60 of 2002 came to be filed by
the respondent claiming that he had not been paid from
July 1994 to June 2001 the overtime wages amounting to
Rs.1,55,400/- even though he was made to work for 12
hours per day and was terminated from the services on
3rd July, 2001. The claim in the application was
related to overtime wages for 4 hours per day. The
petitioners, while disputing the employer-employee
relationship, admitted that the respondent had
rendered service for 8 hours per day but denied the
claim for overtime wages contending that he had never
rendered such service.
23. Obviously, the denial of employer employee
relationship in the said case was apparently without
any substance and the pleadings of the petitioner in
answer to the application of the respondent apparently
revealed existence of such relationship and the
admission in that regard. Being so, there is no
substance in the contention regarding absence of such
relationship. The point however is whether the
respondent was able to disclose the right to claim
overtime wages. Admittedly, there was neither any
admission in that regard nor adjudication of any such
right of the respondent by the competent Court. The
dispute does not relate merely to the calculation of
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 23 -
the quantum of money due but it relates to the very
liability of the employer and right of the claimant to
claim overtime wages. Undisputedly, there was no
adjudication by the competent authority or the Court
regarding entitlement of the respondent-workman for
overtime wages and/or whether the respondent had at
all rendered overtime service. Undisputedly, the
registers produced on record did not disclose the
overtime service having been rendered by the workman.
Indeed, the Labour Court merely on assumption that
since there were only two watchmen, each one of them
might have been working for 12 hours, has held that
the respondent/workman is entitled to get the double
benefits. Obviously, the Labour Court has exceeded
its jurisdiction while dealing with the matter under
Section 33-C(2) of the said Act, and therefore, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the application under
Section 33-C(2) of the said Act, for the reasons
stated above, are liable to be dismissed.
24. In the result, therefore, both the petitions
succeed. For the reasons stated above, the impugned
orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The
applications under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act are
hereby dismissed. In both the petitions, rule is made
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::
- 24 -
absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.
-----
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:50:38 :::