Orissa High Court while dismissing the writ petition reiterates that Section 33C (2) of the ID Act and labour Court’s power under section 33C (2) is like that of the executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution
Brief Facts:
The Current petition has challenged the order dated 27th June 2016, where the petitioner’s claim on entitlement, made under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for encashing earned leave of 64 days. The Labour Court in the impugned order held that the petitioner was not entitled to receive any dues from the management.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client was entitled to have his leave commuted to be applied against his absence on medical grounds, notwithstanding the period having been extended. Instead, it has been contended that the management wrongfully sanctioned earned leave and that is why the petitioner’s claim before the labour court was disputed. Entitlement for encashment of 64 days of earned leave was claimed in front of the labor court.
Contentions of the Respondent
The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the workman’s application for commuting his leave could not be allowed as there was an insufficient leave of half pay to his credit. Then the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak was relied on by the respondents where Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been talked about.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court noted the case referred to by the Respondents and then went on to refer to Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Rajagopalan, where the Constitution Bench had considered the scope of Section 33C (2) of the ID Act and the kinds of claims that fall under the said section were discussed. It also mentioned some of the claims, which could not fall under section 33C (2). Then it was further noted that the Rajagopalan case interpreted the Ganesh Razak case and held that under Section 33C (2) the power can be exercised only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and for the purpose of implementation or enforcement of some ambiguity required interpretation, the labor court’s power u/s 33C (2) is similar to the executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution
For the current case, it was held that the petitioner’s application was dealt with by the management and was not challenged by him then. It was further noted that even if the widest interpretation is allowed the petitioner’s claim of the management not having commuted his leave would amount to entitlement for computation cannot be accepted.
The Decision of the Court:
The writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Sarat Chandra Patra v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore and others
Coram: Justice Arindam Sinha; Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Case No.: WP(C) No.7565 of 2019
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. G.C. Swain, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
