MCD Vs. AJUDHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raises a question of law whether the Labour Court on an application under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act(herein after referred to as 'the Act'), award to the workman the difference in wages which the workman is getting as a daily wager and the wages other regular employee doing same work was getting in the department. In all the cases, workmen had approached the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act with the prayer that the workman was a daily wager and he was getting minimum wages whereas other regular employees of the petitioner, doing the same work, were getting more wages. The Labour Court relying upon the judgment in MCD Vs. Ganesh Razak, of this Court, allowed the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and directed that the applicants be given difference in wages for the period for which the application was made, between minimum wages and the wages being paid to the regular employees.

(2.) The decision in MCD vs Ganesh Razak was challenged by MCD by way of an SLP before Supreme Court and the decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in (1995) 1 SCC 235 MCD v. Ganesh Razak and another. The Supreme Court observed as under:

(3.) In view of the fact that decision on which the Tribunal's order has been passed, has been reversed, I consider, the order of the Tribunal cannot stand and has to be set aside. Even otherwise, it is now settled law that a Labour Court can entertain an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, only in respect of settled rights of the applicant. Where the rights are disputed, an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act cannot be entertained. In A.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.S. David Paul (2006) 1 LLJ 999, the Supreme Court held that the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act can entertain only those claims which arise out of a pre-existing benefits.