YAD RAM Vs. BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions were heard together I as they involve a common question of law and they will be disposed of by this judgment. The common question of law relates to the interpretation and scope of section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) To state it generally, what happened was that the individual petitioner in each of these petitions alleging himself to be a workman made an application to the specified Labour Court under the aforesaid section of the Act for the determination of the amount of money due to him and/or for computation in terms of money of the benefit to which he was entitled. The respective employer, in his reply be fore the specified Labour Court, denied the existence of the relationship of workman and employer and, thereupon, following the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court and ",some decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court, which shall be referred to hereinafter, the Labour Court held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the question of such relationship and ordered the return of the respective applications to the workman concerned. These orders have led to the institution of these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the specified Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine the existence of the relationship of employer and workman because it has to determine the title of the workman to receive the money due or the money equivalent of the benefit and determination of such title cannot be made unless such relationship is shown to exist for the relevant period. The contention on behalf of the respondent-employers is that it is only in a case where the relationship is admitted or not disputed that the specified Labour Court can grant the relief under the. aforesaid section. It is further contended that a specified Labour Court under the aforesaid section has no jurisdiction to derermine incidental matters like the existence of the relationship as is the case with a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under subsection (4) of section 10 of the Act or with any of the authorities constituted under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and that the function of a specified Labour Court under section 33C (2) of the Act is merely to compute the money due or the money equivalent of a benefit as its function is merely that of an executing court.