Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sh. Raghunath Rath And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 198 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The respondent No.1 had filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short referred to as `the Act') claiming that he should be considered as a permanent employee in the eyes of law and be held to be entitled to be paid the difference between the wages, he would have earned as a regular employee and what he got as a daily wager between 1.8.1970 and 31.3.1978, on which date respondent No.1 was regularised. In the written statement filed before the Labour Court by the petitioner, it was denied that respondent No.1 was entitled to the grant of any such difference in wages. The petitioner also submitted before the Labour Court that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable. The Labour Court by the impugned order allowed the application of respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to submit the detailed chart showing the difference in wages paid and payable to the petitioner as per the prescribed scale of pay between 1.8.1970 and 31.3.1978. This order has now been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the management had challenged the maintainability of the application under Section 33C(2) on the ground that the claim of the workman for difference in wages was neither an existing claim nor an admitted claim, the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act. It is submitted that if the respondent/workman felt that he was entitled to be paid the same wages as were payable to the regular employee, the only remedy available to him was to proceed under the provisions of the Section 10 of the Act as it is only in an industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court that a decision could be given about the entitlement of the said respondent to the alleged difference in wages claimed in the application. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and another-57 (1995) Delhi Law Times 364 (SC) wherein it was held that the claim of the respondents-workmen, who were daily wage worker, to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular employees had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer without which the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach. It was held that the workmen's claim of doing the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as regular workmen on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" being disputed, without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of their claim to that effect, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract Section 33C(2) of the Act. The respondent's claim being not based on prior adjudication could not be computed by the Labour Court.

 3. The present case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.    Respondent No.1 was, therefore, not entitled to file any petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act to claim wages which were neither adjudicated nor recognised by the petitioner-management.  I, accordingly, allow this petition, make the rule absolute and quash the impugned order dated 20.4.1987.