In Sanskrit Education Society & Ors. v. Pravinbhai Ambalal Vasava (C/SCA/223/2018), the Gujarat High Court held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) without determining the claim.
In the instant case, workman filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioners on account of insufficient wages. He prayed for payment of a differential amount from the appointment date till 31.05.2011 and an interest rate of 18%. Thereafter, the Labour Court of Vadodara ordered payment of ₹1,29,034.30/- as the differential amount. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on grounds of adjudicating a disputed claim. The petitioner contended that M/s.EssPee Corporation was hired as the contractor who marked the presence of the respondent in the register. When the contract terminated in May 2005, the respondent also left and started working with Anmol Educational Service.
Whether the Labour Court possesses the jurisdiction to try an application under section 33C(2) of the ID Act and order the grant of differential amount of wages when the workman worked for different contractors during different periods.
Section 33C(2) of the ID Act: States 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 this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months:
- So, 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 this Act, be decided by Labour Court.
- Further to add to the above, if there is no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employee and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate is due or not, then Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act would not be attracted at all, and the appropriate remedy would only be either under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. The labour court’s jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is like that of an executing court.
As per the settled preposition of law, without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Gujarat High Court placed reliance on the decisions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Brijpal Singh, Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd.; Chandigarh and Ors. v.Suresh Chand and Ors., and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Birendra A Bhandari; observed that
“…the benefits under the provision of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act can be enforced, on a pre-existing right. It is also held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum, the respondent-workmen cannot ask the Labour Court in an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. It is held that the workmen can proceed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under section 33A or on a reference under section 10 of the ID Act”.
About the author
