Dismissal of challenge to recovery of salary based on smallness of the amount involved.

The respondent-workman was dismissed from service on April 26, 1988, for alleged misconduct.

The Labour Court, Anand, set aside the termination on June 9, 1997, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages.

The respondent was reinstated on December 1, 1997, and subsequently retired on November 30, 2003.

Post-retirement, the workman filed Recovery Application No. 284/2003 seeking Rs. 900/- per month as salary difference for the period between June 10, 1997 (post-award) and November 30, 2003 (retirement).

The Labour Court allowed the application on February 29, 2008.

The petitioner-employer challenged this order via a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Recovery Application was maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the absence of a pre-existing adjudicated right to the specific salary amount claimed.

2. Whether the Labour Court's order dated February 29, 2008, directing payment of salary differences, should be quashed.

Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides a summary procedure for the recovery of money due to a workman from an employer where the right to such money is pre-existing.

Discretionary jurisdiction of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, observing the principle that High Courts may decline to interfere in matters where the financial stakes are negligible ("smallness of amount").

The petitioner contended that for a Section 33C(2) application to be maintainable, there must be a pre-existing right, and since the respondent had retired, no such right existed for the claimed salary difference.

The court noted that the workman was deprived of his salary for the period between the order of reinstatement (June 10, 1997) and his actual retirement (November 30, 2003).

The total difference calculated was approximately Rs. 70,000/-, which the petitioner had already deposited in 2009 following a court order.

The High Court chose not to delve into the technicalities of "pre-existing rights" under Section 33C(2) in this specific instance, primarily because the financial quantum involved was too small to warrant the continued exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that this decision would not be treated as a legal precedent regarding the interpretation of Section 33C(2).

The Registry was directed to disburse the deposited amount of Rs. 70,000/- plus accrued interest to the respondent-workman, and the Rule was discharged.