Bus Checker’s Rs 2.2 Lakh Wage Claim Fails As P&H HC Finds Evidence Insufficient To Prove He Worked From 2016 To 2018

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain the claimed wages under Section 33-C(2) when the existence of his employment and performance of duties during the relevant period were disputed

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had not established an existing right to the wages claimed, and that no perversity, jurisdictional infirmity, or manifest legal error justified interference with the Tribunal’s order.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed; any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of

01Facts

The petitioner sought recovery under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, of ₹2,20,612 as wages allegedly unpaid from September 2016 to December 2018.

¶ 1–3, 7–14

He asserted that, after an earlier industrial reference was closed following his statement that no dues remained, the respondents took him back into service in November 2012 and he continued working during the claim period.

¶ 1–3, 7–14

The respondents disputed his employment and entitlement.

¶ 1–3, 7–14

The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the evidence insufficient to establish his engagement and performance of duties throughout the relevant period.

¶ 1–3, 7–14

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

¶ 1–3, 7–14

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner could obtain the claimed wages under Section 33-C(2) when the existence of his employment and performance of duties during the relevant period were disputed

¶ 6–7

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim disclosed a legal or evidentiary error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227

¶ 14–16

03Law Applied

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to compute in monetary terms a benefit arising from an existing right, including deciding incidental questions necessary for computation; it does not permit the Court to adjudicate a disputed substantive entitlement that requires independent determination. This distinction was drawn from Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, (1995) 1 SCC 235

¶ 6

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court does not sit as an appellate court to reappraise evidence; interference is warranted where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, affected by a manifest error of law or jurisdiction, or otherwise legally infirm, as explained in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477

¶ 15

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33C

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s claim required proof not merely of a past engagement in 2012 but of continued employment and actual work from September 2016 to December 2018.

¶ 8–14

The Tribunal considered the earlier proceedings, the discrepancies in documents, the absence of the original application relied upon, and the limited dates covered by the attendance records and checking reports. It found that the material did not establish continuous service or the claimed wage entitlement.

¶ 8–14

The High Court held that the earlier statement did not itself extinguish any later entitlement, but the petitioner still bore the burden of proving that entitlement. The respondents’ failure to lead evidence did not discharge that burden.

¶ 8–14

As the Tribunal’s findings were reasoned and supported by the record, they did not meet the threshold for supervisory or writ interference

¶ 8–14, 16