Madras High Court
S.Pandi vs The Management on 20 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3222 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.3222 of 2024
S.Pandi ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Management,
Pearl Exports,
Thuvarankulam Village,
Sivagangai Main Road,
Madurai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the award dated 11.10.2022
passed by the Honourable Labour Court in C.P.No.32 / 2020 with respect to the
issue Nos.2 and 3 and quash the same and allow the C.P.No.32 /2020 as prayed
for.
____________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.3222 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sivasubramanian
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner workman aggrieved by
an order dated 11.10.2022 passed in C.P.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the Court
of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.
2. In the said petition filed before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner
claimed in totally an amount of Rs.4,17,000/- under different heads including the
claim for payment of provident fund and gratuity to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-
and Rs.58,875/- respectively. He also further made a claim for payment of bonus
of Rs.2,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.7,000/- towards notice pay and an amount
of Rs.55,000/- towards closure compensation and an amount of Rs.55,000/-
towards leave salary. Out of the above said amounts, the learned Labour Court
has granted only closure compensation of Rs.50,000/- with 6% interest. The rest
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
of the claims were rejected by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the
petitioner failed to place any material in support of his claim either by way of
pleadings or by way of documentary evidence. Insofar as the claim with regard
to the provident fund and gratuity are concerned, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not contesting the same in the present
Writ Petition and seeks liberty to make a claim before the appropriate authorities
under the relevant enactments. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to
examine the claim insofar as the payment of provident fund and gratuity and the
petitioner is granted liberty to pursue the remedy otherwise available under law.
3. Insofar as the leave salary is concerned, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent submitted that the respondent is ready to pay the amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards leave salary as against the claim of Rs.55,000/- made by the
petitioner. As already noted above, there is no material placed before the learned
Labour Court in support of the claim made by the petitioner for an amount of
Rs.55,000/- towards leave salary. Further, it is also not stated as to on what
basis, the petitioner has arrived at the said sum of Rs.55,000/-. In view of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent offering to
pay the amount of Rs.50,000/-, this Court is inclined to accept the same
especially, in the absence of any supporting material placed by the petitioner for
an amount of Rs.55,000/-. Hence, insofar as the claim for leave salary is
concerned, no further adjudication needs to be made.
4. Similarly, as against the claim of notice pay of Rs.7,000/-, the learned
counsel for the respondent has accepted to pay the said amount also without any
contest. Then rest of the claim is for payment of bonus of Rs.1 lakh as claimed
before the learned Labour Court. Before examining the matter on merits, it is
necessary to see whether the learned Labour Court is competent to decide the
entitlement of the petitioner for payment of bonus or not?.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also strenuously
contested the matter on the ground of jurisdiction of learned Labour Court to
consider the aspect relating to payment of bonus under the provisions of the
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. As seen from the impugned order, the learned
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
Labour Court refused to grant bonus in favour of the petitioner on the ground
that the petitioner failed to place appropriate material nor pleading in support of
the claim made for payment of bonus to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. Even before this
Court also no additional material is placed for consideration of this Court in
support of the claim made for payment of bonus by the petitioner. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.P.State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Ranjeet
Singh and Ors reported in (2008) 4 SCC 241 as well as the orders passed by this
Court in The Management of Khilari Medical System Vs. The Presiding
Officer and Ors reported in 2024 LLR 384 and Management of Ganesh
Theatre Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors [W.P.No.25475 of 2002,
dated 09.04.2010] to contend that the learned Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to
examine the entitlement of the petitioner for payment of bonus under the
provisions of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner is not seeking to decide the entitlement of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
petitioner for payment of bonus but only seeking to enforce the provisions of
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and therefore, tried to distinguish the decisions
relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and contended
that the learned Labour Court is well within its power to decide the issue
pertaining to bonus.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and has carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondent.
8. In the case of H.P.State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Ranjeet Singh
and Ors, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 241 the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 15
held as under:
“15. Further, the High Court seems to have lost sight of the fact
that the Labour Court under the Act can decide only the matters
specified in Second Schedule. "Bonus" is not covered by the Second
Schedule. Item 6 of Second Schedule says that it deals with all matters
except those covered by the Third Schedule. "Bonus" appears as Item 5
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
in the Third Schedule. Therefore, the question of entitlement to bonus
could not have been decided by the Labour Court. In case of pre
existing rights there must be agreements by both sides about existence
of such rights. If there is dis-agreement this has to be decided by the
competent authority. The stand that the expression `bonus payable'
relates to the quantum and not pay ability is also not correct.”
9. So also, the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of The
Management of Khilari Medical System Vs. The Presiding Officer and Ors
reported in 2024 LLR 384, by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of H.P.State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Ranjeet Singh
and Ors, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 241 came to the conclusion that the bonus is
not covered under the second Schedule. Therefore, the question of entitlement
of bonus could not have been decided by the learned Labour Court.
10. Similarly, in the case of Management of Ganesh Theatre Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors in W.P.No.25475 of 2002, dated
09.04.2010 another learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
“6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
Labour Court is competent to adjudicate the matter raised by the
workman/2nd respondent under Section 33C (2) of the Act vis-a-vis
the settled legal position.
A similar issue fell for consideration before the Supreme
Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Ganesh Razak & Anr.
(1995 (1) SCC 235). The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the
above said judgment clearly indicates that where the very basis of
the claim or entitlement of a 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 33C(2) of the Act. The Apex Court further
held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the
workman's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so
adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section
33C(2) of the Act. Only when the entitlement is earlier adjudicated
or recognised by the employer and, thereafter, for the purpose of
implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires
interpretation, that interpretation is treated as incidental to the
Labour Court's power under Section 33C(2) like that of the
executing court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its
execution and the Labour Court is empowered to go into the dispute
with regard to the claim of any workman by entertaining a claim
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, there being no earlier
adjudication or recognition of any existing right of the employee by
the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to
the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of
proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act. Therefore, the 2 nd
respondent has to raise an industrial dispute only before the
appropriate authority, which can adjudicate the matter of dispute
with regard to wages. Therefore, the power of Labour Court under
Section 33C(2) has to be construed that it extends only to interpret
the award or settlement on which the claim is based, which means, it
cannot adjudicate the fresh dispute of entitlement or basis of claim
made by the workman when the same entitlement or claim was
disputed by the employer.”
11. The law with regard to the scope of a petition under Section 33C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Uttarpradesh and another vs. Brijpal Singh reported in (2005)
9 SCC 58, has been pleased to hold at Paragraph Nos.10 and 13 as under:
“10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed under
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
Section 33-C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a
complaint under Section 33-A or on a reference under Section 10
that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has
set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the
case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand [(1978) 2 SCC
144 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 165] held that a proceeding under Section
33-C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in
which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a
workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any
benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money,
proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding
further, this Court held that the right to the money which is sought
to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed
must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or
provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the
relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer.
This Court further held as follows: (SCC p. 150, para 4)
“It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) to arrogate to itself the
functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain a claim which is
not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be
made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference
under Section 10 of the Act.”
11. ...
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
12. ...
13. [Ed.: Para 13 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./99/2005 dated 20-10-2005.] . Thus, it is clear from the
principle enunciated in the above decisions that the appropriate
forum where question of back wages could be decided is only in a
proceeding before a forum to whom a reference under Section 10
of the Act is made. Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant
case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial
Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein
which is not based on an existing right but which may
appropriately be made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute
in a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. Therefore, the
Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by
the respondent herein under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act in an
undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the
appropriate forum, the respondent workman cannot ask the
Labour Court in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID
Act to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to
compute his wages. It is, therefore, impossible for us to accept the
arguments of Mrs Shyamla Pappu that the respondent workman
can file application under Section 33-C(2) for determination and
payment of wages on the basis that he continues to be in service
pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court in Writ
Petition No. 15172 of 1987 dated 28-10-1987. The argument by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
the learned counsel for the workman has no force and is
unacceptable. The Labour Court, in our opinion, has erred in
allowing the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act
and ordering payment of not only the salary but also bonus to the
workman although he has not attended the office of the appellants
after the stay order obtained by him. The Labour Court has
committed a manifest error of law in passing the order in question
which was rightly impugned before the High Court and
erroneously dismissed by the High Court. The High Court has also
equally committed a manifest error in not considering the scope of
Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in
setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case
No. 11 of 1993 dated 23-8-1995 and the order dated 9-1-2002
passed by the High Court in CMWP No. 36406 of 1995 as illegal
and uncalled for. We do so accordingly.
Ed.: Para 13 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.F.
3/Ed.B.J./99/2005 dated 20.10.2005”
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in H.P.State Electricity Board
and Ors. Vs. Ranjeet Singh and Ors, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 241 has been
pleased to hold that the bonus is not the one that would come within the scope
and ambit of the learned Labour Court and the same was specifically excluded.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
The Hon'ble Apex Court has come to such a conclusion considering the fact that
the specific authorities are prescribed under the provisions of the Payment of
Bonus Act, 1965 to deal with the compliance of non payment of bonus etc.
13. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court
is of the considered view that the learned Labour Court is devoid of its power to
deal with the claim made by the petitioner for payment of bonus to the tune of
Rs.1 lakh. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the
claim made by the petitioner for payment of bonus in a petition filed under
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In case, if the petitioner has
got any sustainable claim for payment of bonus, against the respondent, it is
always open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps under the provisions of
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 in accordance with law.
14. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to consider the
claim of the petitioner for payment of provident fund, gratuity and bonus.
Insofar as the claim for leave salary and the notice pay are concerned, having
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
taken into consideration the concession made by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to
pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards closure compensation, Rs.50,000/-
towards leave salary and Rs.7,000/- towards notice pay in total Rs.1,07,000/-
with interest at the rate of 6% with effect from 11.12.2022 till the date of actual
payment. The petitioner is directed to furnish the relevant bank details to enable
the respondent to remit the amounts as directed under this order.
15. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
20.02.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
vsm
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
vsm
20.02.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:00 pm )
