Chairman Patel Education Society ... vs Amarnath Sharma
2023 Latest Caselaw 16654 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE
                            BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                    ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 3892 of 2010

BETWEEN:-
1.    CHAIRMAN PATEL EDUCATION SOCIETY AND
      AN R . 103-104, FIRST FLOOR AB ROAD INDORE
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    DIRECTOR B.M.TECHNOLOGY & PHARMACY
      C O L L E G E NEAR CHOKHIDHANI, POST
      KASTURBAGRAM, KHANDWA ROAD (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY MS. RACHNA DUBEY, ADVOCATE)

AND
AMARNATH     SHARMA 323, MAHALAXMI                 NAGAR
SECTOR R INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUNIL JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
SIDDHARTH JAIN, ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

following:
                                    ORDER

01. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Labour Court in Case No.01 / I.D. /2008, whereby the application filed under Section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to pay an amount of Rs.18,330/- to the respondent within 45 days.

02. The respondent was engaged as Office Associate on 03.03.2007 and discharged his duties with the satisfaction of the employer. He went on leave for a period of 13 days in the month of November, 2007, but he was not paid the wages for the said leave period. He approached the Labour Court by submitting a claim (i) for November, 2007 payment of seven days' salary on which he was on leave i.e. Rs.2,333/-; (ii) the amount deducted from his salary i.e. Rs.1,165/-;

(iii) salary during the leave period i.e. Rs.999/- and (iv) for national holidays & overtime work amount of Rs.13,333/-, totaling to Rs.18,330/-.

03. The petitioners filed a reply by submitting that the respondent was appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis, therefore, he was not entitled for

these monetary benefits which he is claiming.

04. The learned Labour Court framed five issues for adjudication and after recording the evidence gave finding that the respondent / workman is entitled for the wages for the leave period and other monetary benefits and calculated the amount of Rs.18,330/-. Hence, the present petition is before this Court.

05. While issuing notice this Court has not granted any stay of execution of the award.

06. The present petition is filed only on the ground that the claim submitted by the respondent is beyond the purview of Section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act as there is no award and settlement between the parties to pay the aforesaid amount. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33 C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act is very limited, therefore, the labour Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction and authority in passing the impugned award.

07. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent argued in support of the

impugned award by submitting that after considering the entire evidence that came on record, the Labour Court has duly examined the issue and found that the respondent is entitled for the wages. Finding of facts recorded by the Labour Court is not liable to be interfered in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as scope of interference is very limited. The Labour Court, after relying upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court passed the award.

08. The respondent claimed the amount of seven days' wages, wages for leave period, national holidays and overtime working. It is not the case of the petitioners that these claims were not available to other employees who are working with the petitioners. For these claims, no award or judgment is liable to be executed as these claims are liable to be given by the petitioners to its employees. If the same is not paid, the Labour Court is certainly having jurisdiction to decide all the claims in terms of money. Even otherwise, the Labour Court duly framed five issues for adjudication, recorded the evidence, examined the documentary evidence and passed the impugned award. Interference by this Court in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and this Court cannot act as an appellate Court, therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter.

09. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2023.10.10 17:23:09 +05'30'