Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of Model Mills, Nagpur (a unit of National Textile Corporation), filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the First Labour Court, Nagpur, claiming wages at overtime rate (1½ times) for work done on weekly off days and public holidays. They alleged that they were entitled to such wages and had been receiving them until 1982, when the benefit was discontinued. The respondent employer opposed the claim. The Labour Court recorded evidence and found that the employees had established an existing right to receive the amount, but held that they failed to bring on record necessary material to compute the exact entitlement, such as the number of holidays worked and the prevalent wage rates. Consequently, the Labour Court dismissed the application. The employees sought review, which was also dismissed. The employees then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, relying on the judgment in Municipal Council, Latur v. Shivaji Vaijnath Kamble (1994 Mh.L.J. 1844), held that once the Labour Court finds an existing right, it is duty-bound to compute the amount due and cannot shirk its responsibility. The court observed that the Labour Court's failure to compute the amount constituted a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Labour Court, and remanded the matter for fresh computation of the amount due to the employees.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33C(2) - Computation of Wages - Existing Right - Once the Labour Court finds that the employee has an existing right to receive wages at overtime rate, it is duty-bound to compute the amount due and cannot dismiss the application merely because the exact number of holidays or rate of wages is not proved. The court must make efforts to ascertain the quantum. (Paras 4-6)
B) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33C(2) - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Refusal to Exercise - Failure to compute the amount due after finding entitlement amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court, having found that the employees had an existing right to overtime wages for work on holidays, was justified in dismissing their application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 solely on the ground that the exact quantum could not be computed due to lack of evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders dated 18.01.2001 and 16.03.2005 passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur, and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh computation of the amount due to the petitioners in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- computation of wages
- existing right
- duty of Labour Court to compute amount due
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 366
Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2005
Shri L.K. Khamborkar for Petitioners, Shri A.P. Wachasunder for Respondent
Shri Ramkhilawan s/o Ramprasad Gupta (since dead by L.Rs.) and Shri Bhimrao Bhadange
Model Mills, Nagpur Unit of National Textile Corporation, Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Labour Court rejecting application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of overtime wages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of Labour Court orders and direction to compute and pay overtime wages for work on holidays.
Filing Reason
Labour Court dismissed the application under Section 33C(2) on the ground that the exact quantum could not be computed due to lack of evidence, despite finding an existing right.
Previous Decisions
First Labour Court, Nagpur dismissed I.D.A. Case No. 83/1989 on 18.01.2001; review petition Misc. I.D.A. No.4/2003 was dismissed on 16.03.2005.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court, having found an existing right, was justified in dismissing the application under Section 33C(2) for lack of evidence to compute the exact amount.
Whether the Labour Court's failure to compute the amount due amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that once the existing right was established, the Labour Court was duty-bound to compute the amount due, relying on Municipal Council, Latur v. Shivaji Vaijnath Kamble (1994 Mh.L.J. 1844).
Respondent argued that the Labour Court correctly dismissed the application as the petitioners failed to provide necessary material for computation, relying on D. Krishnan v. Special (2008) 7 SCC 22.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, once the Labour Court finds that the employee has an existing right to receive a benefit, it is duty-bound to compute the amount due and cannot dismiss the application merely because the exact quantum is not proved. Failure to do so constitutes refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / employee has questioned the order dated 18.01.2001 passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur in I.D.A. Case No. 83/1989, rejecting the application filed by them under Section 33C2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for grant of wages at over time rate for work done by them on holidays.
It found that, though the applicants established the existing right to receive the amount, they did not bring on record necessary material to enable it to compute their entitlement.
By placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported at 1994 Mh.L.J. 1844 (Municipal Council, Latur .vrs. Shivaji Vaijnath Kamble), Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel has urged that once the existing right i.e. entitlement to claim amount was found by the Labour Court, it ought to have made efforts to compute the amount due and payable to the petitioners and its failure to do so, constitute refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the First Labour Court, Nagpur (I.D.A. Case No. 83/1989) claiming overtime wages. The Labour Court dismissed the application on 18.01.2001. The petitioners filed a review petition (Misc. I.D.A. No.4/2003), which was dismissed on 16.03.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33C(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
