Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1342 (JHR)

Bipin Bihari Jha @ B. B. Jha v. T. R. F. Limited

2012-09-10

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
Order The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.1.2012 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been dismissed. 2. In the application the petitioner has claimed that he was entitled to get higher scale in the company as per the standing order, but the same was denied to him while the other four similarly situated persons were given the higher grade scale. Further grievance is that the annual increment was due on 1st April at the time of joining, but the same was erroneously shifted to 1st January and then to 1st July by the respondent unilaterally and the petitioner was placed as gradeless employee in the year 1988. 3. According to the petitioner, the said denial of increment on putting him to gradeless scale and also shifting of the date to his prejudice is wholly illegal and arbitrary and that the petitioner is entitled for getting his due payment after placing him at the appropriate scale after restoration of his initial date of increment. 4. The management denied the claim. It has been, inter alia, stated that the applicant was given promotion to the post of Senior Clerk in June, 1986. The incremental scale of pay is known as graded category and the supervisor and the managerial employees are in gradeless category. The scheme of payment of Dearness Allowance to the gradeless category was made applicable w.e.f. 1.7.1993, whereas the petitioner was in gradeless category since 1988 till his superannuation. The petitioner was superannuated on 31.7.1999 from his service and at that time he was holding the post of Marketing Officer. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the benefit as claimed for. The said controversy between the parties gives rise to a industrial dispute and requires adjudication. The same cannot be decided on application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for computing the benefit on the basis of the accepted and pre-existing right. The petitioner's claim is not based on any accepted right. The application was, thus, not maintainable. Learned Labour Court has rightly held that in view of the controversy leading to serious dispute between the parties, proceeding under Section 33C(2) is not maintainable and has rightly dismissed the petitioner's application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. The application was, thus, not maintainable. Learned Labour Court has rightly held that in view of the controversy leading to serious dispute between the parties, proceeding under Section 33C(2) is not maintainable and has rightly dismissed the petitioner's application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. In the impugned order, learned labour court has discussed the facts and contentions of the respective parties in detail. He has also considered the material and evidences on record and has come to the conclusion that the disputes raised by the petitioner are industrial dispute to be adjudicated under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act. The application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is only for computation of the benefits which are not disputed and accordingly has dismissed the application. 7. I find no illegality or infirmity in the said conclusion. 8. It is well settled that the proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is akin to an execution proceeding. It does not provide for adjudication of any controversy regarding any right between the parties. The 'computation' as envisaged in the Act, has to be made on the basis of existing right to money or benefit, which has been previously adjudicated upon and settled between the parties. The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any disputed issue under Section 33C which comes within the domain of the dispute to be referred to under the provisions of Section-10 of the I.D. Act. 9. I, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order or any point made out to interfere with the same. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.