K V JOSEPH Vs. PIERCE LESLIE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were engaged in works connected with loading and unloading, movement or storage of cargo, etc. , in Cochin Port and Dock Area and in connection with the business of the first respondent as clearing and forwarding agents, shipping agents, exporter and merchant. Their contention is that they are entitled to wages of 52 Sundays of each year during the period of their continuous service. The Labour Court dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners holding that the applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, are not maintainable. It also refused to entertain the stale claims.

(2.) SECTION 33-C (2) can be invoked by any workman if he is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. If any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, the Labour Court is empowered to consider it. Right of any workman to approach the Labour Court, if he is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, is beyond any controversy. But an application under this section must have reference to an existing right referable to an award, settlement, provisions of the Act or a subsisting contract. The petitioners were unable to relate their claim to any award, settlement or provisions of the Act. Nor they could relate it to a subsisting contract. As the petitioners do not base their claim on any award, settlement or provisions of the Act or contract, their application under the section was ill conceived.

(3.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 33-C (2) are akin to execution proceedings. Amount due to the workmen cannot be determined by the Labour Court on an application under Section 33-C (2) as the claim is not based on any existing right under an award, settlement, provisions of the Act or subsisting contract. In other words, the petitioners cannot invoke the aid of Section 33-C (2) with regard to a claim not based on an existing right. It is useful to refer to Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1974 II LLN 78, where the Supreme Court held thus in Para 13, at page 84: