Section 33C(2) cannot impose award liability on an entity that was not party to the adjudication.

The respondent-workman was engaged by the Indo-German Fertiliser Educational Project, a temporary project established pursuant to a collaboration agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany. His engagement commenced on 2 February 1976 and continued periodically until 30 June/4 July 1977. The project subsequently closed in 1985/1986.

An industrial dispute was raised against the project, resulting in an award dated 19 June 1998 directing reinstatement with full back wages.

For computation and recovery of the monetary benefits under the award, the workman initiated proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

During those proceedings, the First Labour Court added Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (“HFCL”) as a party, holding that it was the successor-in-interest of the Indo-German Project and that the two were not separate entities for determining the employer–employee relationship.

Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits the Labour Court to compute money or benefits already adjudicated or otherwise due to a workman; it does not confer jurisdiction to create a new liability, determine an employer–employee relationship afresh, or modify the parties bound by the original award.

The Court applied the principle embodied in Section 18(3) of the Act that an award binds only the parties and persons legally covered by the industrial adjudication.

An executing court must confine itself to enforcing the decree or award and cannot go behind it or impose liability on a person against whom no award was passed.

The Court relied on GKW Limited v. 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors., 1996 (1) LLN 106 (Cal-DB) concerning the impermissibility of fastening liability in execution proceedings on an entity not bound by the original adjudication.

The original dispute, pleadings, and award were directed against the Indo-German Fertiliser Educational Project, not HFCL.

The workman had been engaged only temporarily for the project, which closed in 1985/1986, before the award was made in 1998.

HFCL was not impleaded in the original reference, and no determination during that adjudication established that HFCL was the employer or successor-in-interest of the project.

The Labour Court’s later decision to add HFCL during Section 33C(2) proceedings, merely because service on the closed project was unsuccessful, effectively created a fresh liability and required a determination of disputed employer–employee and succession issues.

Such an exercise exceeded the limited jurisdiction of a court executing an award.

The Labour Court acted without jurisdiction in impleading HFCL as the alleged successor-in-interest and in determining its liability during execution of the award.

Accordingly, memo No. 213/24/12/FL/LC dated 24 February 2012 and the order dated 17 January 2011 in Computation Case No. 2 of 2009 were quashed and set aside.

The writ petition, WPA 7817 of 2012, was allowed; connected applications were disposed of and any interim order was vacated.