COOPETATIVE STORE LIMITED Vs. K S KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been brought under Articles 226 & 227 of the Consntution of India seeking quashment of order April 16, 1987, made by respondent No. 1.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is running Super Bazars and respondents 2 to 67 are its workers. They were being paid wages on piece-rate basis for packing of various commodities being sold at various branches of Super Bazars owned by the petitioner. Respondents 2 to 67 had filed petitions under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') claiming payment of amounts alleged to be due to them on account of weekly holidays. These claim petitions were filed before the Labour Court under the Act. The claim petitions were opposed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdicition to entertain the claims which allegedly arise under The provisions of Delhi Shops and C Establishments Act, 1954, and the claims are also not consizable under Section 33 C(2) of the Act and more over respondents 2 to 67 were not entitled to any such payments for weekly off days inasmuch as their wages had been fixed in compliance with the notification issued by the Delhi Administration dated December 31, 1979, under the Minimum Wages Act which clearly provided that no, separate .payment is to be made for weekly off days. It was also pleaded that the claims were barred by time and could be enforced only under Section 21 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act (for short 'Delhi Shops Act') before the authority constituted under Delhi Shops Act.

(3.) The petition is contested by the respondents who have pleaded that their claims are very much covered by the provisions of Section 33 C(2) of the Act and that the said notification issued by the Delhi Administration under the Minimum Wages Act was not applicable to their case and that the provisions of Delhi Shops Act did not bar the jurisdiction, of the Labour Court under the Act to entertain such a claim and that there is no limitation prescribed for bringing the claims under Section 33 of the Act. They also pleaded that even before the filing of the writ petition a final order has been made by the Labour Court on July 23, 1987, allowing the different amounts to respondents 2 to 67. However, it was agreed before me that the petitioner may be allowed to even impugn the said final order in this writ petition because that order has to obviously go if the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court is set aside, it is, indeed, not in dispute that the claim of respondents 2 to 67 put up before the Labour Court was based on provisions of Sections 17 & 18 of the Delhi Shops Act Section 17 contemplates observance of one weekly holiday hi every week Which is to betreated as a paid holiday. It was clearly mentioned in Section 18 that if an employee is paid on piece rates he shall receive the average of the wages received during the week for a weekly holiday. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that provisions of Section 33 C(2) of the Act did not contemplate entertainment of disputed claims. He has cited Central Inland Water Transport Corporation. Limited v. The Workmen & Another, AIR 1974 SC 1604(1), in which it has been laid down that "a proceeding under Section 33 C(2) is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court proceedings to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being previously adjudged, or, otherwise duly provided for.", do not understand how these observations of the Supreme Court are of any help to the petitioner to show that the claim put up by the respondents before the Labour Court was not of the nature contemplated by Section 33 C(2) of the Act. It has been duly provided in Sections 17&18 of the Delhi Shops Act as to how much amount is liable to be paid for weekly off day. It was only question of computing the amount due to each of the respondents. Hence, there was no question of any determination of the nature of the claim which could preclude the applicability of provisions of Section 33 C(2) of the Act in the present case.