Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 412 (KER)

Chacko A. v. VS Labour Court

2003-06-25

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. The question for consideration was whether an application for relief" under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as. 'the Act') could be made by the representatives of the workmen. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 the Secretaries of two Beedi Thozhilali Unions filed a petition under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Ernakulam, claiming the terminal benefits due to 12 workers who were retrenched as per agreement between the employers and the union dated 11th October 1995. The petitioners, employers raised a contention that the claim petition under section 33(c)(2) of the Act had to be filed only by the employee or group of employees and not by the union or by representatives and such petition filed by the representatives or by the union, was not maintainable. Further, they wanted to have the above question decided as a preliminary issue and the Tribunal decided the above preliminary issue by Ext. P-2 order in favour of the workmen. The above preliminary order is under challenge at the instance of the employers. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a claim petition under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be filed by the representatives of the employees but it should be filed by the employee or group of employees in view of Rule 62A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Kerala Rules). 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a claim petition under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be filed by the representatives of the employees but it should be filed by the employee or group of employees in view of Rule 62A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Kerala Rules). Section 33(c)(2) under which the petition was filed would read as follows: "Where any workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government (within a period not exceeding three months): PROVIDED that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it I necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit." Section 33(c)(2) did not say that the application should be filed by the employee or group of employees and it did not prohibit the union or the representatives of the employees making a claim under the above provision. Rule 62A of the Kerala Rules also did not specifically impose any restriction regarding the filing of an application or claim petition by the representatives. The claim petition filed under section 33(c)(2) is in fact an industrial dispute which would come within the definition of an Industrial Dispute as defined in the Act. Section 36 of the Act permit any industrial dispute be raised by the union or the representatives of the employees. In view of the specific provision under section 36 of the Act, the representatives of the employees are fully competent to move an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. A claim under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act being an industrial dispute, the union or representatives of the employees are fully competent to raise such disputes before the Labour Court. Hence, I do not think that the claim petition filed by the representatives of the workmen can be rejected on that ground. 4. A claim under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act being an industrial dispute, the union or representatives of the employees are fully competent to raise such disputes before the Labour Court. Hence, I do not think that the claim petition filed by the representatives of the workmen can be rejected on that ground. 4. Apart from the above legal position, the present claim petition was filed by the petitioners in pursuance to a direction issued by this court in O.P. 10067/96. On an earlier occasion petition filed under section 33(c)(2) was referred to the Government and the Government raised an industrial dispute adjudication for before the Labour Court. The above order was challenged by the petitioners by filing O.P. 10067/96. This Court set aside the order of reference and directed the petitioners to file a claim under section 33(c)(2) of the Act. It was on the basis of the above direction, a claim was made. In fact, the respondents had undertaken before this Court in O.P. 10067/96 that they shall not raise any question as to the jurisdiction and their contention shall be confined only to the quantum of the amount. The Tribunal had properly held that the claim under section 33(c)(2) filed by the representatives was maintainable. I find no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence this original petition has to be dismissed. I would like to point out that as far as possible, the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals deciding the labour disputes should avoid deciding preliminary points or issues, but they have to decide all the questions by a single order. The Supreme Court has deprecated the above practice in D.P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration and others 1983 (4) SCC 293 . In the result this original petition is dismissed. The Labour Court, Ernakulam is directed to dispose of the claim petition within three months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment.