Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 312 (ALL)

SBEC Sugar Ltd. Baghpat v. Labour Court, Meerut

2009-01-29

TARUN AGARWALA

body2009
JUDGMENT :- Per T ARUN AGARW ALA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The workman filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial 5 Disputes Act for payment of wages for the period September 11,2005 to January 5, 2006 and also claimed a sum of Rs.10,000 which he had deposited as security at the time of his engagement as a weighment clerk. The Labour Court in its order has awarded a sum of Rs.10,361 towards arrears of wages along with interest @ 6% per annum. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was not maintainable since there was no previous adjudication of the benefit which the workman had claimed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in D Krishnan and Another v. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and Another 2008-II-LLJ-I066 (SC). 3. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently misconceived and bereft of merit. In Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Company Ltd. Bararee Colliery, Dhanbadv. Rameshxvar and Others AIR 1968 SC 218 : 1968-I-LLJ-6 the Supreme Court held that the right to the o benefit under Section 33-C (2), which is sought to be computed, must be an existing one which has also been adjudicated upon or provided for and that such claim must be in respect of an 5 existing right arising from the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer. 4. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Rajak and Another (1995) 1 SCC 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395 the Supreme Court after reviewing its earlier decisions held that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workman to a certain benefit was disputed, and if there was no earlier adjudication of the dispute, in that event, the claim of the workman under Section 33-C(2) would be without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the workman and then 5 10 proceed to compute the benefit under Section B-C(2). 5. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming the wages for the period he had worked. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the workman and then 5 10 proceed to compute the benefit under Section B-C(2). 5. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming the wages for the period he had worked. The fact that the petitioner had worked for the said period has not been denied by the employer. The fact that the workman was not paid the wages or the stipend as contended by the employers is also not disputed. The rate of wages or the scale of stipend is also not disputed. Consequently, the wages which is due and payable to the workman is the benefit which is available to the workman and is in an existing right granted to him under the Industrial Laws and is not required to be adjudicated as alleged or contended by the employer. 6. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the entitlement of the arrears of wages to the workman was an existing benefit which was only required to be computed and o the application was rightly filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned 5 order passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.