The Divisional Controller ... vs Sadashiv S/O Doddappagouda Patil
2022 Latest Caselaw 3126 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

             HON'BLE JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

      WRIT PETITION No.205958 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.W.K.R.T.C.
BIJAPUIR DIVISION
BIJAPUR

                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI DEEPAK VISHNU BARAD, ADVOCATE)

AND

SADASHIV
S/O DODDAPPAGOUDA PATIL
OCC: EX.DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR
R/O AT LOTAGERI AND POST
BIJAPUR,
TQ. MUDDEBHIHAL,
DIST. BIJAPUR

                                             ...RESPONDENT

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI WHEREBY QUASHING ORDER
DATED 23.04.2015 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, VIJAYAPUR
IN APPLICATION NO.86/2014 AS AT ANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.
                                        2




     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOIWNG:

                                  ORDER

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.

2. Recently, this Court, vide order dated 14th 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. Deposit, if any, made by

the petitioner, shall be refunded to the petitioner on due

identification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn