High Court of Karnataka Examines Labour Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. The Court Considers Whether a Disputed Claim of Arrears of Salary Can Be Adjudicated in a Section 33(C)(2) Proceeding Without Prior Adjudication of the Workman's Status.

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, which partly allowed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by a workman claiming arrears of salary.

Petitioner-employer sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the Labour Court order dated 11.01.2022 in Application No.1/2014 and to call for the lower court records.

The employer disputed the Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, contending that the respondent was not a workman under Section 2(s) and that the claim involved disputed questions of fact which could not be determined under Section 33(C)(2).

Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in Application No.1/2014 dated 11.01.2022, partly allowed the workman's claim directing payment of arrears of salary with 9% interest per annum for various periods from 22.06.2000 to November 2012, after deducting amounts already paid, and rejected claims for leave salary, gratuity, and three months' notice.

Whether the respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whether the Labour Court could adjudicate disputed questions of fact in a proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner-employer argued that the respondent was not a workman as he claimed to be an Administrative Officer in the management cadre, disentitling him to the status of a workman. The employer contended that the claims were denied and the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) could not give a finding on disputed questions of fact; the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the claim and relegated the workman to a civil court. Reliance was placed on Bombay Chemical Industries v. Labour Commr. (2022 (2) LLJ 53 (SC)), particularly paragraphs 10 and 11, to argue that when the very employment is disputed, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) to decide the claim. Reliance was also placed on State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey, particularly paragraph 8, to emphasize that the benefit sought under Section 33(C)(2) must be a pre-existing right, not one that requires adjudication.

The Labour Court acting within the purview of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act could not have given a finding on the disputed question of fact, the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the claim made by the workman and relegated him to a Civil Court. Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is necessarily a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. Where the very employment as a salesman by the employer was disputed, the Labour Court would not have the power under Section 33(C)(2) to decide a claim made by such persons whose employment itself is disputed.

The workman filed Application No.1/2014 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, claiming arrears of salary. The Labour Court passed an order on 11.01.2022 partly allowing the application and directing payment of arrears with interest. Aggrieved, the employer filed Writ Petition No. 7032/2022 before the High Court of Karnataka under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard the matter and reserved orders on 10.02.2023, delivering the judgment on 13.04.2023.

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s), Section 33(C)(2)
• Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227