GUNVANTBHAI LAXMANBHAI PATEL Vs. MALIKSHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disinclination of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in entertaining Recovery Application No. 163 of 2009 of the petitioner on the ground that in absence of the adjudication of the claims made by the petitioner it has no jurisdiction to entertain it, has compelled the petitioner to file the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The workman made certain claims including overtime under Payment of Wages Act, payment towards paid leaves under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act.

(3.) It is settled legal position that the proceedings under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and the court or an authority specified under the said provision has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputed claims or the claims in respect of which entitlement is not demonstrated. Only jurisdiction under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is computation of the undisputed entitlements or adjudicated entitlements. Undisputed entitlements may flow from adjudicated claims or statutory entitlements or entitlements through other sources like contract etc. For statutory entitlement or contractual entitlement, before raising the claim, the criterion contemplated therein must be shown to have been satisfied. As to the extent of jurisdiction of the specified authorities under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act it was observed in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. The Workmen and Anr. AIR 1974 SC 1604 in paragraphs No. 12 to 15: