Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Tularam Manikrao Hadge, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Nagpur, rejecting his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner had worked as a skilled worker in the respondent's printing press from 11.08.1989 to 31.12.2013. In 2005, he filed a complaint ULPA No.2/2005 before the Industrial Court claiming permanency, but withdrew it after the respondent treated him as a permanent employee. However, the respondent did not pay wages of a permanent employee, leading the petitioner to file Writ Petition No.3370/2007, which was disposed of as withdrawn after the respondent's categorical statement that the petitioner was permanent and working as a skilled worker. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 33-C(2) for computation of difference in minimum wages from 2005 to 2013. The Labour Court rejected the application on grounds of limitation and lack of prior adjudication of entitlement. The High Court held that Section 33-C(2) is a procedural provision for computation of benefits already accrued, and limitation does not apply strictly. The respondent's admission of the petitioner's permanent status and the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act established the pre-existing right. The High Court set aside the Labour Court's order and remanded the matter for computation of the difference in wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Computation of Wages - Limitation - The Labour Court rejected the application on the ground that the claim for difference in wages from 2005 to 2013 was barred by limitation and that there was no prior adjudication of entitlement. The High Court held that Section 33-C(2) is a procedural provision for computation of benefits already accrued, and limitation does not apply strictly; the claim was based on the petitioner's status as a permanent skilled worker admitted by the respondent. (Paras 1-16) B) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Applicability to Printing Press - The petitioner worked in a 'Printing Press' which is a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The respondent admitted that the petitioner was a skilled worker and permanent employee. The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to minimum wages as per the Act, and the Labour Court erred in not computing the difference. (Paras 2-16) C) Industrial Law - Pre-existing Right - Section 33-C(2) - The High Court clarified that Section 33-C(2) does not require a prior adjudication of entitlement if the right is admitted or flows from a settlement or award. In this case, the respondent's admission of the petitioner's permanent status and the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act established the pre-existing right. (Paras 10-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for computation of minimum wages on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation and that there was no prior adjudication of entitlement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order dated 29.07.2019 of the Labour Court, and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for computation of the difference in wages payable to the petitioner from 2005 to 2013, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Minimum Wages Act
- 1948
- computation of wages
- limitation
- pre-existing right
- entitlement
- skilled worker
- permanent employee
