Mahendra Mishra vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1483 Cal

19.02.2021
KC(9)

                              F.M.A. 896 of 2019
                               Mahendra Mishra
                                   -versus-
                     The Managing Director, M/s. Gluconate
                           Health Limited and Ors.
                            (Via Video Conference)

             Mr. Ranjit Jaiswal,
             Mr. Mrinal Kanti Kundu,
             Mr. Nandalal Pradhan...................For the appellant.
             Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri,
             Mr. N. Roy..........................For the respondent no. 1.

Mr. Susanta Pal, Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar....................For the State.

We have examined the judgment and order under

appeal dated 13th February, 2019.

In our opinion, this judgment and order is flawed

in its interpretation of Section 33C(2) to (5) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In our opinion Section

33C(2) to (5) is independent of Section 33C(1). Section

33C(1) involves interpretation of a settlement or an

award. Section 33C(2) empowers the Labour Court to

adjudicate upon any dues of the employer to the

employees.

Regrettably, in its order dated 31st October, 2017

the Labour Court has not properly addressed itself to

the question of tiffin allowance connected with overtime

allowance which the workman claimed under clause 7

of the respondent company's order dated 9th June, 1997

(pages 23 to 26 of the paper book).

The appellant workman's claim is Rs. 1,07,337/-

on this account from June, 1994 to December, 2003.

He is old and lacking in financial resources. He is

fighting for several decades for this claim. The amount

is small by current standards.

At this point of time it would be a travesty of

justice to remand the matter back to the learned Labour

Court.

We have tried to apprise ourselves of the facts of

this case. We find there is basis for this claim.

We have tried to assess a reasonable amount

taking into account the available records and

submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

Taking everything into account, in our view

justice could be subserved if 50% (fifty per cent) of the

claimed amount of Rs. 1,07,337/- rounded off to Rs.

53,500/- is immediately paid by the respondent

company to the appellant in satisfaction of his claim.

We order accordingly. We direct the respondent

no. 1 company to pay an amount of Rs. 53,500/- to the

appellant within one month from this order.

The impugned order dated 13th February, 2019 is

set aside.

This appeal (F.M.A. 896 of 2019) is disposed of

accordingly.

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)

(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.)