Harishankar Tantvoy vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12205 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2023
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 3839 of 2013

                           BETWEEN:-
                           HARISHANKAR TANTVOY S/O SHRI BHAGWANDAS
                           TANTVOY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O W.NO.15, P.O.
                           AND TEHSIL REHLI, DISTRICT   SAGAR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (NONE PRESENT)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
                                 TRANSPORT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    MANAGING    DIRECTOR,  M.P.  TRANSPORT
                                 CORPORATION LTD., H.O. NEAR BUS STAND,
                                 HABIBGANJ, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M.P. ROAD TRANSPORT
                                 CORPORATION LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL
                                 LINES, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI AMIT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No.23/2010/ID Act, whereby an application filed by the petitioner Harishankar Tantvoy under Section 33-C(2) of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRIYANKA PITHAWE Signing time: 04-08-2023 14:27:42

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'Act') for recovery of salary from the month of October, 2001 to December, 2004 at the rate of Rs.55,335/- along with 12% interest has been rejected by the Industrial Court on the ground that without there being any adjudication in regard to the entitlement, provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Act are not attracted.

Though, nobody is appearing for the petitioner but I have perused the provisions contained in Section 33-C(2) of the Act which provides that where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any 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, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government.

In the present case, as mentioned by the learned Labour Court, no adjudication had taken place in regard to the determination of the right of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and Another (1995) 1 SCC 235, has held that without adjudication, recourse cannot be taken to the provisions contained in Section 33-C which is a provision providing for recovery of money due from employer. Unless there is an adjudication to the claims of the applicant, no amount can be granted in exercise of the powers under Section 33-C of the Act. When this aspect is examined in light of three judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ganesh Razak (supra), then it is held by the Supreme Court that under Section 33-C(2), Labour Court cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or basis of claim of workmen, it can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. Its jurisdiction is like that of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRIYANKA PITHAWE Signing time: 04-08-2023 14:27:42

Executing Court.

In the present case, since there was no award or settlement, therefore, the learned Industrial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 33-C(2) that does not call for any interference.

The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Priya.P

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRIYANKA PITHAWE Signing time: 04-08-2023 14:27:42