Pre-existing-right objections under Section 33(C)(2) cannot be raised for the first time in writ proceedings.

The respondent-workman claimed to have worked as a daily-wager watchman with the Forest Department since 1985 and sought monetary benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 for the period from 2010 to 2018.

He instituted Recovery Application No. 06 of 2019 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Mehsana.

The Labour Court allowed the application and directed payment of ₹6,99,840/- to the workman.

The State challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Government Resolution was inapplicable and that the workman’s alleged pre-existing entitlement had not first been adjudicated.

The Labour Court’s witness had admitted that the workman was working with the Department, but the State did not produce the service records it had indicated would be produced.

Whether the Labour Court could entertain and allow the workman’s application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act without a prior adjudication of his alleged pre-existing right to the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988.

Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the workman was entitled to the monetary benefits under the Government Resolution was illegal or perverse.

Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to decide questions concerning the amount of money due to a workman, or the monetary computation of a benefit to which the workman is entitled.

The provision presupposes an entitlement or pre-existing right and permits adjudication of the amount or computation arising from that entitlement; however, the objection that entitlement itself requires prior adjudication must be specifically raised and supported by the employer in the proceedings.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that where the employer possesses relevant service records and fails to produce them despite indicating that they would be produced, the employer cannot effectively rely on the absence of such records to dispute continuity of service.

The High Court held that the State’s written statement did not dispute the workman’s employment with the Department or specifically assert that his entitlement required prior adjudication.

Rather, it stated that he had been working with the Department and had been paid wages according to Government norms.

The objection regarding absence of a pre-existing right was therefore raised belatedly in the writ petition and could not be accepted at that stage.

Further, the State failed to produce service records despite its witness indicating that they could be produced, and failed to establish that the workman had not worked continuously.

On the evidence available, the Labour Court was justified in finding that the workman was entitled to the benefits under the Government Resolution and in computing the recoverable amount under Section 33(C)(2).

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in that determination.

It held that, in the absence of a specific objection disputing the workman’s pre-existing entitlement or asserting the need for prior adjudication, the Labour Court had jurisdiction to determine and recover the monetary benefits under Section 33(C)(2).

The writ petition was dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and the State was directed to comply with the Labour Court’s order within eight weeks from receipt of the High Court’s order.