NEW MANEKCHOWK TEXTILE MILLS Vs. KISANDEVI MUNSHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 08/10/2002 in Recovery Application No. 66/1994 filed by the original workman in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming difference of retirement amount.

(2.) It appears that the original workman was serving with the petitioner and he sought voluntary retirement and his voluntary retirement application was accepted and he was retired from service with effect from 31/12/1992. At the relevant time he was paid the retirement benefits, on acceptance of voluntary resignation, considering his year of birth as 1935, which was as per the record maintained by the petitioner. According to the respondent his year of birth is 1936 and he was entitled to in all a sum of Rs. 94,124.42 ps and instead he was paid a sum of Rs. 67,857.14 ps considering his year of birth as 1935, and, therefore, the original workman submitted Recovery Application No. 66/1994 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming the difference in retirement dues considering the year of birth as 1936. In the said application some documents came to be produced by the original workman pointing out his year of birth as 1936 and after giving an opportunity to all the concerned the Labour Court passed by the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 27,267.28 ps as claimed by the original workman. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 08/10/2002 in Recovery Application No. 66/1994 the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Saurabh Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Labour Court, Ahmedabad has materially erred in passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 27,267.28 ps being the difference in the amount of retirement dues considering his year of birth as 1936 in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Vs. SENDHAJI S. THAKOR & ANR reported in 1999 (1) GLH 513 it is submitted that as held by the Division Bench of this Court in absence of an award, order or an adjudication in favour of a workman and crystallization of the amounts due, no applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are maintainable. It is further submitted and as held by the Division Bench unless and until an adjudication is made, application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be filed for recovery of amounts, which are yet to be ascertained. It is submitted that as observed by the Division Bench in the said decision proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are akin to execution proceedings and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition.