Dhirjan Poojan Gond vs Western Coal Fields Ltd., Thr. Sub ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4817 Bom

                                                          1                                   16.WP.2279-2023.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 2279 OF 2023
                              ( Dhirjan Poojan Gond
                                         Vs.
                  Western Coal Fields Ltd., Thr. Sub-Area Manager )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. R.N. Sen, Advocate for the Petitioner.




                                  CORAM:         AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 4th MAY, 2023

Heard Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petition challenges the judgment dated 21.05.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Chandrapur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner is held to be not maintainable.

3. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the impugned judgment is incorrect in law, and therefore, is required to be set aside as the entitlement of the petitioner is required to be determined. In my considered opinion, the application before the learned Labour Court, was under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the "I.D. Act"), is equivalent to an execution, and therefore, requires a claim to have already been pre-determined.

2 16.WP.2279-2023.odt

The prayer sought in the application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act (page 48), would indicate that the petitioner is claiming determination of his entitlement for wages for the period stated therein as well as other losses, recovery of bonus, quarter rent, pension, gratuity etc, which cannot be determined by the leaned Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, as the role of the learned Labour Court while considering the said application is not adjudicatory one. The learned Labour Court while considering the relief sought under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, has rightly considered this position and held the application not to be maintainable. I therefore do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of the learned Labour Court.

4. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte