HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS. Vs. MALHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga in Application No. 43/2011.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent preferred application before the Labour Court under Section 33(C-2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short, seeking payment of Rs. 5,09,040/- with interest at 18% p.a. The Labour Court passed order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,28,782/- towards D.A. difference and leave encashment salary etc., with interest.

(3.) The first contention of the petitioner is that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction and the application under Section 33(C-2) of the Act should have been dismissed as there is no prior determination or adjudication of the claim made by the respondent. The petitioner had settled all the claim of the respondent on his retirement. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel referred Section 33(C-2) of the Act and contended that on retirement of the respondent, the relationship of employer and employee is severed and therefore the respondent, if at all, he is entitled, ought to have approached under Section 10(1-C) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs., Ganesh Razak & another, 1995 1 SCC 235. The learned counsel referred Para No. 12 therein to the effect, "it is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized 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 u/s 33(C-2) and like that of the executing court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution." The learned counsel also referred the judgment in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Birendra Bhandari, 2007 1 SCC(L&S) 69, where it is held that there shall be pre-existing right available to the workman to invoke the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Another decision on which reliance placed is in State of U.P. & another vs., Brijpal Singh, 2005 SCC(L&S) 1081. In Para-10 of the judgment, it has been held that it is well settled that the workman can approach under Section 33-C(2) only after the Tribunal had 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.