Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Bhimaraya S/O Pandit Makanapur on 18 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.204391 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, VIJAYAPUR DIVN.,
VIJAYAPUR.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
NEKRTC,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI./SMT : SUBHASH MALLAPUR)
AND
BHIMARAYA
S/O PANDIT MAKANAPUR
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: EX-CONDUCTOR,
R/O AT & POST: HULGUNAKI,
TQ: INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRYAING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 17.10.2018 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
2
LABOUR COURT, VIJAYAPUR IN APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION IS COMING FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, learned Counsel is directed to take
notice for respondent.
2. In this writ petition the petitioner-Corporation has
challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the
Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Recently, this Court, vide order dated 14 th February,
2017 made in writ petition No.201637 of 2017, allowed the
petition observing thus:
"5. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate
that the Application No.31 of 2016 is filed seeking arrears
of wages. In this regard, I have carefully considered the
provisions contained under Section 33 of the Act.
Undisputably, in the present writ petition, no award or
settlement has been passed between the parties. In this
regard, it is useful to refer to the law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUNICIPAL
CORORATION OF DELHI v. GANESH RAZAK AND
ANOTHER reported in (1995)1 SCC 235, wherein it is
observed that where the very basis of the claim or the
entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is
disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or the
dispute relating entitlement is not incidents to the benefit
claimed is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a
proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The
observation made at paragraph 12 of the aforementioned
judgment, reads thus:
"12. The High Court has referred to some of
these decisions but missed the true import thereof.
The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that
where the very basis of the claim or the
entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is
disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or
recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute
relating to entitlement is not incidental to the
benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside
the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of
the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to
first decide the workmen's entitlement and then
proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on
that basis in exercise of its power under Section
33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement
has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the
employer and thereafter for the purpose of
implementation or enforcement thereof some
ambiguity requires interpretation that the
interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour
Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of
the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree
for the purpose of its execution."
6. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned case has been reiterated recently by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. BOMBAY
CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES v. LABOUR COMMISSIONER in
Civil Appeal No.813 of 2022 decided on 04th February,
2022, wherein it is observed that the Labour Court has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute of entitlement or
basis of claim of workman, unless there is a settlement or
an award. Applying the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex
Court referred to above, I am of the view that the
impugned order dated 17th January, 2017 passed by the
Labour Court, Vijayapur is liable to set aside, accordingly
set aside. Writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is
reserved to the applicant/respondent to file a claim
petition in terms of the provisions contained under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
3. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed.
Liberty is reserved to the respondent to approach the competent
authority for redressal of his grievance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
