UNION OF INDIA Vs. MALATIBEN SURESHBHAI CHILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Mukesh A.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Y.V. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Mr.Patel has raised number of arguments in support of his submission that the workman is neither a railway servant nor a temporary employee and as his status is in dispute, an application under sec.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ("the Act" for short) was not maintainable. According to Mr.Patel, in a case of dispute and when there are no pre-adjudicated rights or pre-judged rights, an application under sec.33-C(2) of the Act would not be maintainable.

(3.) Mr.Y.V. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, placing reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.S. Rajgopalan, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 743, submitted that in a case of a genuine dispute, submissions of Mr.Patel certainly would be acceptable, but, where the right flows from an award or settlement or legal position or from a judgement of a higher court, then, the other party cannot be allowed to say that the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under sec.33-C(2) of the Act.