JAGDISH CHANDER ANAND Vs. MADAN BABU AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 staking a claim for closure compensation as well as a small amount on account of the difference between the wages paid to him and the applicable minimum wages. In its Reply, the Management had not challenged the Petitioners right to invoke Section 33-C(2) or the Jurisdiction of the Court. From a reading of this Reply, the only dispute raised was that the Petitioner's entitlement was only with effect from 1.1.1996. The Petitioner had contended that he was in service with effect from 1.1.1954 and that computation should be made keeping this date in mind.

(2.) In the proceedings before the Labour Court-VI no issue as to the maintainability of the application under Section 33-C(2) had been framed as no objection or demur had been raised by the Management. In the Award, however, the Labour Court has dismissed the claim on the grounds that this provision, namely, 33-C(2), was not attracted in the circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation ofDelhi v. Ganesh Razak and another (1995) 1 SCC 235, The facts of that case, however, appear to have escaped the attention of the Labour Court. The claim was on account of equal pay for equal work. This entitlement had not been adjudicated upon at any previous time by any other Authority. It was in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made the following observations already extracted by the Labour Court.

(3.) A perusal of paragraph 13 of the said judgment, however, clarifies the factors which had weighed in the mind of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in arriving at this decision. A reading of this paragraph makes this position amply clear.