SHER SINGH VERMA Vs. RUP CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi, made on the application of Tapeshari Dass respondent No. 2 under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner. On 20th December 1963 Tapeshwari Dass, (hereafter referred to as respondent) made the aforesaid application claiming that he had been in employ of Sher Singh and sons, of which Sher Singh, (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) is alleged to be the sole proprietor. The respondent further claimed in his application that he had been in the employment since April 193 8 and his wages were Rs. 250.00 per mensem. He alleged that the management closed the establishment in the month of August Without any notice to the applicant and the petitioner had failed to pay the dues as required under section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent, therefore, claimed Rs. 3.375.00 asunder :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_327_DLT1_1965Html1.htm</FRM> On these facts the respondent prayed in his application under section 33 C(2) that the Court may compute the amount due to him. The petitioner was called upon to file a reply in which he inter alia stated as under :-

(2.) The Labour Court came to the conclusion that (a) Tapeshwari Dass was entitled to make an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ; (b) closure of business by the petitioner was due to the causes beyond his control and Tapeshwari Dass was, therefore, entitled only to three months wages as retirement compensation; and (3) Tapeshwari Dass was drawing a salary of Rs. 250.00 and therefore he was entitled to Rs. 750.00.

(3.) Mr.D.D.Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award the relief. He says that if the respondent's claim on account of money due to him under the provisions of Chapter V-A, his remedy is to make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money. If on the other hand there is a dispute about the existance of relationship of employer and employee the respondent can raise an industrial dispute but no claim the amount under section 33-C(2) He does not dispute that the word "benefit" under the said provision is not confined merely to non-monetary benefit which could be converted in terms of money and agrees that the section embraces benefits whether monetary or non-monetary to which aworkman may be entitled. Mr. Sharma also does not dispute that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.Rajugopalan etc. The scope of section 33C(2) is wider than the scope of section 33 C (1) and the claims not based on settlements, awards or made under the provisions of Chapter V-A may in certain circumstances be competent under section. 33 C(2). His submission is short is that the dispute as to whether the relationship of employer and employee exists or whether he is entitled to any wages does not fall to be determined undersection 33 C (2), though it may be open to the employee to raise an industrial dispute. He strongly relies on the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court m Central Bank's Cose:-