A division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, while adjudicating a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, observed that from Section 33-C (2), it’s clear that if a workman’s right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may have to be determined by the Labour Court. Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of money the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that benefit.
Facts:
Abhijit Guha, the petitioner, contends that he never employed opposite party no. 1. She used to roll Bidi in her house under Abhijit’s contractor and thus, there was no master-servant relationship between Abhijit and the said opposite party. The impugned order was made on the application under section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per the petitioner, not only the application was misconceived since, opposite party no.1 could not have been said to be entitled to anything from his client but, by impugned order the Labour Court purported to adjudicate on the controversy regarding relationship between the parties, to hold retrenchment and thereupon direct payment.
Observations of the Court:
Relying on the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan reported in AIR 1964 SC 743, the court observed that Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 proceeds on entitlement of a workman to receive from the employer any money or benefit, which is capable of being computed in terms of money and on question arising as to the amount due or the amount, at which the benefit should be computed, for there to be adjudication. There was no dispute regarding the retrenchment. Petitioner admitted that payment of salary used to be obtained by husband of opposite party, by putting signature in the pay roll in her name instead of on her behalf. Furthermore, the Court also found, the person said to be contractor had EPF account no. OR/774/119 and was not examined by petitioner. Particulars of entitlements stated in the application were simply denied. Absence of specific denial amounts to evasion. In the circumstances, there was no dispute regarding the relationship or entitlement of opposite party no.1 to receive the benefit on having been retrenched.
Decision:
The writ petition was dismissed.
Case: Abhijit Guha vs Madhuri Ranjan Sahu and another
Coram: Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 15840 of 2014
Pronounced on: 27.10.2022
Reade Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
