CHARTERED BANK Vs. M R BALOONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the Bank challenges the validity of the award of respondent 2 (Labour Court, Delhi) holding 'that respondent 1, a clerk in the Bank. is entitled to special allowance under the Bipartite Settlement of October 19. 1966 between several banks and their workmen. Two contentions are raised one preliminary and the other on merits. The preliminary objection is that the Labour Court, Delhi has no original jurisdiction to entertain directly an application by a workman under section 33C(2) of the. Industrial Disputes Act for the determination of his claim to special allowance. Such original Jurisdiction, it is said is confined to section 33A. The language of section 33C is contrasted with section 33A. Sub-section (1) of section 33C expressly requires an application to the appropriate Government. It was further argued that even if it is assumed that the Labour Court had the Jurisdiction to entertain the application of the Respondent I under section 33C(2), it did not have the authority to direct payment of moneys to the Respondent 1. All that it could do was to forward its decision to the appropriate Government.

(2.) . It is significant that the Petitioner has not pleaded anywhere that the Respondent 2 was not such a Labour Court as was specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government under sub-section (2) of section 33C. The only question argued was whether any Labour Court has original jurisdiction to entertain direct application under section 33C(2) or whether it can take up cases thereunder only on a reference by the Central Government. The contention of the petitioner is untenable for the following reasons. Firstly, no objection to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was taken when the application of Respondent 1 was contested by the petitioner before the Labour Court. It would not be lair to the Labour Court to consider such an objection raised for the first time in the writ petition. Secondly, rule 62(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 expressly authorises a workman to apply to the specified Labour Court in Form K-3 for the determination of the amount due or. as the case may be, the amount at which such benefit should be computed. Lastly, the question whether the Labour Court can entertain an application from the workman directly and can give relief to him directly is no longer res integra. It is concluded by two decisions of the Supreme Court which have concluded after exhaustive examination of the subject that the Labour Court under section 33C(2) can entertain a direct application from a workman and can determine his rights thereunder. These decision are:-The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan, AIR 1964 S.C. 743(1), and East India Coal Company, Ltd. v. Rameshwar and others, 1968-1 L.L.J. 6, (2). On the other hand, the rule framed by the West Bengal Government required the application to be made not to the Labour Court but to the State Government. This explains the decision in Treogi Nath v. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., AIR 1968 S.C. 205, (3) and M. L. Bose & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 1969-II LL.J. 395,(4) as also the decision in Management of Socklatinga Tea Estate v. N. I. Korean, AIR 1968 Assam & Nagaland 15(FB), (5).

(3.) . The decision of the dispute on merits would turn on the construction of the following provisions of the Bipartite Settlement :-