Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 413 (MAD)

Sankarankovil Sarvodaya Sangh v. D. S. Mariappan

2016-02-04

A.SELVAM

body2016
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records of the second respondent's order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 and quash the same. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the present writ petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has served in the society of the respondent. On 12.07.1996, a charge memo has been issued and consequently he has been suspended from service. From 28.11.1996 to 30.09.1997, the petitioner is entitled to get monthly emoluments. Since the respondent has failed to pay the same, the present petition has been filed. 4. The second respondent after considering the divergent contentions raised on either side, has allowed the petition and thereby granted the relief sought therein. Against the order passed by the second respondent, the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. Even though the first respondent has received summons, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances the present writ petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention putforth on the side of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the first respondent as petitioner has filed Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said Section is not an enabling Section for the purpose of granting the relief sought in the petition and the second respondent without considering the fact that Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 is not legally maintainable, has erroneously allowed the same and therefore the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed. 7. 7. In support of the contention putforth on the side of the petitioner, the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another reported in (1995)1 Supreme Court Cases 235 is relied upon, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has had an occasion to deal with the power of Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ultimately held that the power of Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) extends to interpretation of the award or settlement on which the workman's right rests, like the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution, where the basis of the claim is referable to the award or settlement, but it does not extend to determination of the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim if there is no prior adjudication or recognition of the same by the employer. 8. Even a cursory look of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is made clear that Section 33-C(2) of the said Act is not an enabling Section so as to claim the relief sought in the present petition. To put in short, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the most, the Labour Court can act as an Executing Court. But it has no power to decide the present claim mentioned in Claim Petition No.105 of 1997. 9. Further it is seen from the records that after due enquiry, the first respondent has been dismissed from service on 29.01.1998 and after dismissal he has made a comprehensive claim by way of filing I.D.No.123 of 1998 against the management, wherein he prayed to grant so many reliefs including arrears of salary during the period of suspension. Since a comprehensive claim has been made in I.D.No.123 of 1998 and since Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 is not factually and legally maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is very clear that the award passed in Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 by the second respondent is totally erroneous and the same is liable to be quashed. 10. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 by the second respondent is quashed. The writ petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount if any deposited in the Labour Court in pursuance of the order of this Court. 10. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Claim Petition No.105 of 1997 by the second respondent is quashed. The writ petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount if any deposited in the Labour Court in pursuance of the order of this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.