Namor Ali Choudhury & Ors Vs.
Central Inland Water Sport Corporation Ltd. & ANR [1977] INSC 218 (16
November 1977)
UNTWALIA, N.L.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION: 1978 AIR 275
ACT:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--Jurisdiction
of Labour Court--Interpretation of section 33C(1) and (2).
HEADNOTE:
The appellants, workmen of the respondent
company, filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, in the Labour Court asking it to compute their wages due from the
respondent on the basis of certain settlements said to have been arrived at
between them and the management. Holding that each of the workman in the Assam
Sector was also entitled to take advantage of the settlement between the
company and its employees in West Bengal, the Labour Court allowed their
application in part rejecting only that portion of the claim of the workmen for
Rs.13/- p.m. from Feb. 1971 to Mar., 1972. The Gauhati High Court allowed the
writ application filed by the management and quashed the order of the Labour
Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the
Court,
HELD : (1) The High Court Committed an error
in narrowly interpreting section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
There are two parts of the 'sub-section (2) of section 33C of the Act. The
first part is concerned with the money claim simpliciter and the second part
speaks about computation in terms of money of any benefit to which the workman
is entitled. Where any workman is entitled to receive from employer any money
and if any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may
be decided by the Labour Court. The expression "if any question arises as
to the amount of money due" embraces within its ambit any' one or more of
four kinds of disputes, namely : (1) Whether there is any settlement or award
as, alleged?, (2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive from the employer
money at all under any settlement or an award etc. ? (3) If so, what be the
rate or quantum of such amount ? and, (4) Whether the amount claimed is due or
not? A dispute as to all such questions or any of them would attract the
provisions of section 33C (2) of the Act and make the remedy available to the
workman concerned. If the right to get the money on the basis of the settlement
or the award is not established, no amount of money will be due.
If it is established, then it has to be found
out, albeit, it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due.
For finding it out, it is not necessary that
there should be a dispute as to the amount of money due also. The fourth kind
of dispute will be covered by phrase "amount of money due". [207 A,
C-H, 208 A] Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. (1964) 3
S.C.R. 140; R. D. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court Nagpur
& Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580; and Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd. V.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745, followed.
(2)Satisfaction of the appropriate Government
which is spoken of in sub-section (1) of section 33C of the Act in their prima
facie satisfaction when a claim is made by any workman before the Government
for issuance of a certificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount
due. If the appropriate Government finds that the amount claimed by the workman
is due- and there is no such dispute which needs any adjudication by the Labour
Court in accordance with sub- section (2) or the dispute raised is not bona
fide, then 206 the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount due to
the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrears
of land revenue. [208 D-E] Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda [1962]
2 Suppl. S.C.R. 977, not applicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 1578 of 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated 2- 5-73 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 778 of 1972.
M.K. Ramamurthi, A. K. Ganguly and D. P.
Mukherjee for the Appellants.
Niren De, M. K. Banerjee, S. M. Mandel, A. G.
Menesses for respondent No. 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of
the Gauhati High Court dated the 2nd of May, 1973 setting aside the order of
the Labour Court, Gauhati dated the 26th July, 1972. The facts are in a very
narrow compass and the point involved is short.
The appellants, workmen of the, respondent
company, filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, in the Labour Court asking
it to compute their wages due from the respondent on the basis of certain
settlements said to have been arrived at between them and the management. The
Labour Court allowed their application in part and held that each of the
workman was entitled to get Rs. 849/- from the respondent company @ Rs. 20/-
per month from December, 1969 to March, 1972 and @ Rs. 12/- from March, 1970 to
March, 1972. The claim of the workmen for Rs. 13/- per month from February,
1971 to March, 1972 was rejected by the Labour Court. The management challenged
the order of the Labour Court in Civil Rule No,. 778 of 1972 by a writ
application.
The High Court allowed the application and
quashed the order of the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.
It may be stated here that the only dispute
between the management and the workmen in the proceeding under section 33C(2)
of the Act was whether the employees in the Assam Sector were also entitled to
take advantage of the settlement between the company and its employees in West
Bengal. The quantum or the rate of extra wages to which the workmen would have
been entitled if the advantages under the settlement were found available to
them was not in dispute.
In that view of the matter, the High Court
was of the opinion, to quote the relevant words from its judgment- "For
conferring jurisdiction on a Labour Court under section 33C(2), it is not only
necessary that the workmen should be entitled to any money due but also that
there should be a dispute about the amount of that money. It is 207 clear that
there is no dispute with regard to the amounts of money which have already been
fixed by the settlement. That being the position, there is no question within
the scope of section 33C(2) for determination by the Labour Court in this
case." In our judgment the High Court has committed an error in so
narrowly interpreting section 33C(2) of the Act. The said provision runs as
follows- "Where any workman 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." There are two
parts of the sub-section as it stands after its amendment by Act 36 of 1964.
The first part is concerned with the money claim simpliciter and the second
part speaks about computation in terms of money of any benefit to which the
workman is entitled. Although for appreciation of the point at issue there is
no substantial difference between the two, we shall confine our discussion to
the money claim only pure and simple. On a plain reading of the wordings of the
Statue it would be found that where any workman is entitled to receive from
employer any money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due,
then the question may be decided by the Labour Court. The expression "If
any question arises as to the amount of money due" embraces within its
ambit any one or more of the following kinds of, disputes :- (1) Whether there
is any settlement or award as alleged? (2) Whether any workman is entitled to
receive from the employer any money at all under any settlement or an award
etc? (3) If so,, what will be the rate or quantum of such amount? (4) Whether
the amount claimed is due or not? Broadly speaking, these will be the disputes
which will be referable to the question as to the amount of money due. If the
right to get the money on the basis of the settlement or the award is not
established, no amount of money will be due. If it is established, then it has
to be found out, albeit, it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the
amount due. For finding it out, is not necessary that there should be a dispute
as to the amount of money due also. The fourth kind of dispute which we have
indicated above obviously and literally will be covered by the 208 phrase
"amount of money due." A dispute as to all such questions or any of
them would attract the provisions of section 33C(2) of the Act and make the
remedy available to the workman concerned.
It is not necessary to elaborately discuss
the various authorities of this Court on the point. To our mind the view we
have expressed above is plainly and squarely covered by the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in several decisions; to wit, The Central Bank of
lndia Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc.(1). R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.
Ltd. v. Labour Court Nagpur & Ors.(2) and Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd.
v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others.
(a) Learned counsel for the respondent
company endeavored to support the judgment of the High Court with reference to
the provision of sub-section (1) of section 33C of the Act.
Counsel submitted that if there is a dispute
as to any amount due, it is to be decided by the appropriate Government under
the said provision of law and not by the Labour Court under sub-section (2),
which is mainly concerned with the computation of the amount. Such an argument
is too obviously wrong to be accepted. A detailed discussion is not necessary
to reject it. The 'satisfaction of the appropriate Government which is spoken
of in sub- section (1) is their prima facie satisfaction when a claim is made
by any workman before the Government for issuance of a certificate by the
Collector for realisation of the amount due. It the appropriate Government
finds that the amount claimed by the workman is due and there is no such
dispute which needs any adjudication by the Labour Court in accordance with
subsection (2) or the dispute raised is not bona fide, then the Government
shall issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector who shall proceed
to recover the same in the manner as an arrears of land revenue. The decision
of this Court in Punjab National Bank Limited v. K. L. Kharbanda(4) does not
help the respondent at all in support of the interpretation sought to be put by
it to sub--section (1) of section 33C.
For the reasons stated above, we allow the
appeal with costs, set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of
the, Labour Court.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 140.
(2) [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580.
(3) A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745.
(4) [1962] 2 Suppl. SC.R. 977.
Back
