Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kranti Hotel Pvt. Ltd vs Labour Court/Industrial ... on 9 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OWP No.254/2005
IA No.321/2005
Reserved on 13.04.2023
Pronounced on 09.08.2023
Kranti Hotel Pvt. Ltd.
....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr. R.K.S. Thakur, Advocate.
Versus
Labour court/Industrial Tribunal, J&K,
Jammu and others ....Respondent(s)
Through: - Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG for R-2.
Ms. Zoya Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-5&6.
None for rest of the respondents.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ, direction or order in the
nature of writ of certiorari for quashing award/order dated 25.04.2003
passed by respondent No.1-Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Jammu on an
application filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the petition are that:
The respondent Nos.5 to 7 had filed an application before the
Industrial Tribunal, Jammu, stating therein that they were employees of the
petitioner-firm and were terminated illegally without following the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. In the application, the aforesaid
respondents claimed certain rights and benefits. The Tribunal after
considering the matter, came to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.5 to
7 are entitled to an amount of Rs.19,000/-, 5460/- and 6400/- respectively
along with 9 % interest per annum on the amount due to them from the date
of discharge of their services. The Tribunal has also imposed cost of
Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the aforesaid respondents. The award amount was
directed to be paid in three months and in default, it was directed that the
petitioner herein shall pay 18 % interest per annum till realization of the
award. The award was sent to Collector, Jammu, who forwarded it to the
Tehsildar Recovery, Jammu, and thereafter non-bailable warrants were
issued against the petitioner herein.
3. Though objections on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been
filed, however, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the contesting respondents.
4. While issuing notice to the respondents, this Court vide order
dated 05.05.2005 as ad interim measure directed the petitioner to deposit
the principal award amount. On going through the record of the file, it
comes to fore that complying with the direction dated 05.05.2005, the
petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.30,860/- before the Registry of
this Court on 06.05.2005.
5. The precise ground of challenge thrown to order impugned by
the petitioner is that the Labour Court was not competent to entertain the
application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and
any suchapplication under Section 33-C(2) could be entertained only after
the reference is made by the Government in terms of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. R.K.S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, has submittedthat the only remedy available to the
respondents was to get the matter referred under Section 10 of the
Industrial Act or Section 33-A of the Act, however, no such reference was
made by the respondents, therefore, order dated 25.04.2003 has been
passed without any jurisdiction which requires to be quashed.
6. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case
ofD.Krishnan and another vs. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative
Sugar Mill and another, reported as (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 22.
He has referred to paragraphs 9, 11, 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitionerhas also placed reliance on
judgment of the Supreme Court in cases ofPunjab Beverages Private
Limited vs. Suresh Chand, 1978 Legal Eagle (SC) 74 andState of UP and
another vs. Brijpal Singh, reported as (2005) 8 SCC 58. Reliance is also
placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision dated 29.09.2009
given by this High Court in case ofManagement of Hindustan Level Ltd.
vs. State and others, reported as 2010 (2) JKJ(HC) 804.
8. On the other hand, Ms. Zoya Bhardwaj, learned counsel
appearing for contesting respondent Nos. 5 and 6,has submitted that
Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is enacted for the purpose of
enabling individual workmen to implement, enforce or execute their
existing rights against their employers without being compelled to have
recourse to section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has further
submitted that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had not challenged order of
dismissal of their employment whereas they preferred the petition for grant
of legitimate dues; hence section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot
be resorted to, therefore, the aforesaid respondents had rightly approached
the Labour Court without seeking reference as the benefit sought was a
preexisting benefit/right. She has also argued that the relationship of
employer and employee is not disputed by the petitioner in this petition.
9. In order to strengthen submissionsmade, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has placed reliance on a decision rendered by the
SupremeCourt in National Building Construction Corporation vs.
Pritam Singh Gill and others, reported as AIR 1972 Supreme Court of
India 1579.She has also produced judgmentsrendered by this High Court in
Kewal Krishan Karta vs. Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and
others, reported as 1990, KLJ 233 as also judgment dated 14.08.1978
passed in New Kashmir Metal Works and rolling Mills vs. Presiding
Officer and another, reported as1978 KLJ 397.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the
arguments advanced by them and perused the writ record as well as
original record of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Jammu.
11. The petitioner's challenge to the award passed by the Labour
Court in the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act is that such an application could not have been entertained by
the Labour Court unless a reference is made by the appropriate
Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. His
submission has been vehemently controverted by learned counsel for
respondents that section 10 of Industrial Disputes Acts has no role qua
subject-matter of instant petition inasmuch as the case in hand does not fall
within the purview of Section 10 and such a contention on the part of
petitioner is aiming at snatching the wages of respondents. She also avers
that once respondents did not challenge the order of discharge, dismissal or
termination, therefore, application under provisions of Section 10 do not
arise at all.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 33C provides for
recovery of money due from employer. Section 33C(2), thus, provides that
where a workman is entitled to receive from employer money or any
benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any
question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which
such benefit should be computed, then the question may be decided by
Labour Court within a period not exceeding three months.
13. As can be seen from perusal of the record, respondents did not
throw challenge to their dismissal but sought payment of their earned
wages. It is evident from pleadings of parties that there is no dispute vis-à-
vis the fact that respondents had been workmen and petitioner had been
their employer. Section 33C(2) takes within its purview cases of workmen
who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled to should be computed
in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim
is based is disputed by their employers. It is open to the Labour Court to
interpret the award or settlement on which the workmen's right rests. The
issue with reference to jurisdiction has been considered in detail by the
Supreme Court in National Building Construction Corporation and by
this Court in Kewal Krishan Karta andNew Kashmir Metal Works and
rolling Mills (supra). The judgements relied upon by counsel for petitioner
are distinct in facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this petition is
dismissed. The awarded amount shall be released in favour of the private
respondents in terms of the award dated 25.04.2003 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal.
)(Vinod Chatterji Koul)
Jammu: Judge
09.08.2023
Surinder
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
