Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Ramniklal Dave, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court dismissing his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner claimed that he was employed by M/s. Tandur and Shahabaz Stone Co. and also worked for its sister concern, respondent No.1 M/s. Sterling Agency, from 1983 to 1989 without receiving any remuneration. He sought Rs. 47,125/- at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The respondent contested the claim, denying any employer-employee relationship and asserting that the petitioner had been paid his wages and retiral dues by the principal company. The Labour Court, after considering evidence, dismissed the application, finding that the petitioner failed to prove any contractual relationship or existing right to the claimed amount. The High Court, per Justice Nishita Mhatre, upheld the Labour Court's decision, noting that the petitioner's own evidence showed he was employed by the sister concern and that no amount had been agreed upon for the extra work. The court emphasized that an application under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable only when a workman claims benefits based on an existing right, which the petitioner failed to establish. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33-C(2) - Existing Right - Workman claimed wages for extra work done for sister concern without any contract or agreement - Labour Court dismissed application as workman failed to prove any contractual relationship or existing right - High Court upheld dismissal, holding that Section 33-C(2) requires an existing right and mere promise by manager is insufficient (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner workman had an existing right to claim wages from the respondent firm under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's order. Rule discharged. No costs.
Law Points
- Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 requires existence of an existing right
- burden of proof on workman to establish contractual relationship
- no existing right without contract or agreement
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 45
WRIT PETITION NO.5043 OF 2009
Mr. V.P. Vaidya for Petitioner, Mr. G.D. Talreja for Respondents
M/s. Sterling Agency & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging dismissal of application under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of wages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to recover Rs. 47,125/- as wages for extra work done for respondent firm.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed he worked for respondent firm from 1983 to 1989 without payment, based on manager's promise.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court dismissed the application under Section 33-C(2) on ground that petitioner failed to prove existing right or contractual relationship.
Issues
Whether the petitioner had an existing right to claim wages from the respondent firm under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the petitioner proved any contractual relationship or agreement for payment of wages.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was employed by Tandur and Shahabaz Stone Co. and also worked for respondent No.1, a sister concern, from 1983 to 1989 without remuneration, and that the manager promised wages.
Respondent contended that there was no employer-employee relationship with petitioner, and that petitioner was paid wages and retiral dues by the principal company.
Ratio Decidendi
An application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable only when a workman claims benefits based on an existing right. The burden is on the workman to prove the existence of such right, including a contractual relationship or agreement for payment. Mere promise by a manager without any contract or agreed amount does not create an existing right.
Judgment Excerpts
The Labour Court has, in my opinion in a well reasoned order, held that the petitioner workman was unable to prove that there was any contractual relationship between him and the respondent firm.
It cannot be gainsaid that an application u/s 33-C(2) is maintainable when a workman claims certain benefits on the basis of an existing right.
The petitioner has failed to prove that he had any existing right to the amount.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed application under Section 33-C(2) before Labour Court claiming wages. Labour Court dismissed application. Petitioner filed writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 33-C(2)
