Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Dairy Manager of Government Milk Scheme, Gondia, challenged the orders passed by the Labour Court, Bhandara, in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent employee, Chunnilal Baburao Sarangpure, had filed an application claiming that he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 12.08.1980 in the pay scale of Rs. 205-355, but was wrongly shown as Laboratory Attendant and paid in the lower pay scale of Rs. 200-280. He claimed a difference of Rs. 54,742.55 for the period from 21.08.1990 to 31.12.1982. The employer opposed the application, stating that there was no sanctioned post of Laboratory Assistant and that the employee was appointed as Laboratory Attendant. The Labour Court allowed the application. The High Court had issued rule and directed the employer to deposit 50% of the amount, which was done. The employee was permitted to withdraw that amount upon furnishing security. The employer argued that the initial appointment as Laboratory Assistant was an error corrected by a modification order dated 12.09.1985, and that there was no sanctioned post of Laboratory Assistant. The employee deposed in support of his claim and was cross-examined, but the employer did not enter the witness box. The High Court held that the employer failed to lead any evidence to contradict the employee's testimony, and the Labour Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference. The petition was dismissed, and the employer was directed to pay the remaining amount within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33C(2) - Computation of Monetary Benefits - Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine and compute the amount of money due to a workman from the employer - The employee claimed wage difference for being wrongly designated as Laboratory Attendant instead of Laboratory Assistant - The employer failed to lead evidence to rebut the employee's testimony - Held that the Labour Court's order allowing the claim was justified and no interference was warranted (Paras 1-6). B) Evidence - Adverse Inference - Non-examination of Witness - When a party fails to enter the witness box and does not offer himself for cross-examination, an adverse inference can be drawn against that party - The employer did not examine any witness to contradict the employee's evidence - Held that the Labour Court correctly drew an adverse inference against the employer (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in allowing the employee's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of wage difference based on his claim that he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant but paid as Laboratory Attendant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and directed the petitioner employer to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 27,371/- to the respondent employee within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Labour Court jurisdiction
- computation of monetary benefits
- adverse inference for non-examination of witness
- burden of proof
