Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of an appeal by Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. against an order of the Labour Court dated 06.08.2011 in Misc. Case No.42 of 2011, which had allowed a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the respondent workman, Mangey Ram. The background was that the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.64/1996 had passed an award on 10.06.1997 holding the termination of the respondent on 07.12.1994 illegal and ordering reinstatement during the next crushing season, with back-wages quantified at Rs.5,000 as compensation, and relegating the issue of intervening wages to the employer. The appellant challenged the award before the Uttarakhand High Court in Civil Misc. Application No.4169 of 2001, which confirmed the reinstatement but left the decision on wages for the period of pendency of the writ petition to the employer. The respondent was reinstated on 26.07.2005, but his representation for wages from 1995 to 2005 was rejected by the appellant on the principle of 'no work, no pay'. The respondent then filed a petition under Section 33-C(2) seeking wages from the date of the award (10.06.1997) to the date of reinstatement. The Labour Court allowed the petition, directing payment of those wages. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court's order was unsustainable because the entitlement to wages for the intervening period was disputed and had not been adjudicated earlier; the High Court had left it to the employer's decision. Relying on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, the Court reiterated that Section 33-C(2) is akin to an execution proceeding and cannot be used to decide entitlement. However, considering that the respondent had already withdrawn Rs.6,00,000 out of Rs.10,00,000 deposited as interim measure, the Court directed that the withdrawn amount shall be treated as full satisfaction of all wages payable from the award date to reinstatement, and the remaining Rs.4,00,000 with accrued interest (interest to the respondent, principal to the appellant) be returned to the appellant. The Court also clarified that any subsequent termination dispute raised by the respondent would be considered separately and not be affected by this judgment.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Scope of Labour Court's Power - Computation of Benefits - The Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) can only compute benefits that have been previously adjudicated or recognized by the employer; it cannot decide entitlement de novo. Where the High Court directed the employer to consider the claim for wages for the intervening period, the Labour Court's order directing payment of such wages without prior adjudication of entitlement is unsustainable. (Paras 6-8) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Entitlement Dispute - Jurisdiction - If the very basis of the claim is disputed and there is no earlier adjudication or recognition, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide entitlement under Section 33-C(2). The principle in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak applies. (Para 8) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Back-Wages - Intervening Period - No Work No Pay - Where the High Court left the decision on wages for the period of pendency of writ petition to the employer, and the employer rejected the claim on 'no work, no pay' principle, the Labour Court cannot override that decision under Section 33-C(2). (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can quantify and direct payment of wages for a period when the entitlement to such wages was disputed and left to the employer's decision by the High Court.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of; Labour Court order dated 06.08.2011 set aside; however, the amount of Rs.6,00,000 already withdrawn by the respondent shall stand as full satisfaction of all wages payable from 10.06.1997 to reinstatement; the remaining Rs.4,00,000 in deposit to be returned to appellant with accrued interest (interest to respondent, principal to appellant). Any subsequent termination dispute to be considered separately.
Law Points
- Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- scope limited to computation of benefits already adjudicated or recognized
- not for deciding entitlement
- principle of 'no work
- no pay' applicable where no adjudication of entitlement
- Labour Court cannot decide entitlement under Section 33-C(2) if disputed.
