Orissa High Court
Pratap Chandra Jena vs Presiding Officer on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.2083 of 2012
Pratap Chandra Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. R. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, .... Opposite Parties
Bhubaneswar and another
Mr. P. K. Muduli, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
06.07.2022
Order No.
04. 1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 5th January, 2012
passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar disposing of the
Petitioner's Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.200 of 2003
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID
Act') praying for computation of his arrears and wages as peon
of the Balasore Mahila College, Balasore for the period from 1st
April, 1989 to 30th November, 2000 amounting to Rs.69,800/-.
2. By the impugned order, the claim of the Petitioner was
computed at Rs.28,000/-, which was directed to be paid by the
Opposite Parties within two months failing which it would carry
interest @ 10% per annum.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he ought to have been
granted the entire amount as claimed since, according to him, he
had produced materials to show that he had been engaged as
Polling Officer, and had worked as such and that his pay was
Rs.800/- per month from April, 1989 onwards. However, on
factual basis, the Labour Court found as under:
"4. On perusal of the case record it appears that the
applicant has claimed his arrear wages at the rate of
Rs.700/- per month from 1.4.89 to 30.11.2000 after
adjusting Rs.100/- per month which he has already been
received from the opposite-party as his monthly salary.
Ext.1, the copy of appointment letter dt.12.3.89 does not
disclose the pay of the applicant. There is also no
materials on record to show that the applicant was getting
Rs.800/- per month from the date of his joining under the
opposite-party. Further there is no pre-existing condition
or agreement between the parties regarding the wages of
the applicant at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from
1.4.89. Law is well settled that:
"Labour Court while exercising powers under Section
33-C(2) exercising power only as Executing Court
and it has no jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of
the workman and then to proceed to compute the
benefits adjudicate."
However, on perusal of the order of appointment of
Presiding and Pooling Officers issued by the District
Election Officer, Balasore dt.6.4.96 for 13-Basta
Assembly Constituency/ and forming part of 2-Balasore
Parliamentary Constituency under the cover of Ext.8, it
shows that the applicant was appointed as 3rd Pooling
Officer whose designation has been mentioned as Peon
and his pay was reflected as Rs.800/- and there no other
material to suggest that he was getting Rs.800/- per month
from April, 1989."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is unable to explain to the
Court as to why the Labour Court committed an error in
appreciating the evidence. He is also not able to show any
document, which indicates that there was an agreement between
him and the Management about his engagement as a Peon,
which fixes his monthly salary at Rs.800/-.
5. In the absence of such material, it was not possible for the
Labour Court to have computed the claim as prayed for by the
Petitioner.
6. The Court also notes that in the recent judgment dated 4th
February, 2022 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.813 of 2022 (M/s. Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy
Labour Commissioner), the Supreme Court has reiterated the
legal position that for entertaining an application under Section
33-C(2) of the ID Act, there has to be a predetermined claim
whereas in the present case, there was no such predetermined
claim.
7. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court is not
persuaded to interfere with the impugned order of the Labour
Court. The petition is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R. K. Pattanaik)
Judge
M. Panda
