AMBICA MILLS LTD Vs. SECOND LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed under Art. 227 of the constitution of India. The petitioner in both the petitions is a registered company under the Companies Act and carrying on business of manufacturing cotton cloth and yarn in the City of Ahmedabad. Respondent 1 in both the petitions is presiding officer, second labour court at Ahmedabad. The other respondents to the petitions are the employees of the petitioner. Respondents 2 to 6 in Special Civil Application No. 458 of 1966 filed an Application No. 88 of 1965 under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) alleging that there was an agreement between the Millowners' Association and the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, dated June 22, 1949, in respect of the wages and scale of pay for the clerks in textile mills at Ahmedabad. The said agreement was also registered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and is binding on the petitioner. The said agreement provided for a pay -scale for those employees who occupy a position higher than that of operatives and lower than that of clerks and that the scale of pay prescribed for such employees under the agreement was Rs. 40 - 3 - 70 - E.B. - 4 - 90 - 5 - 105 prior to 1 January 1960 and Rs. 50 - 3 - 80 - E.B. - 5 - 125 thereafter. The respondents were doing the work of cut -looking in the folding department and their duties consisted of cut -looking and clerical work and thus they were entitled to the adjusted wages as per the above scales of pay. The respondents contended that they had not been paid according to the adjusted basic pay from July 1, 1917 to January 31, 1964. They have been paid basic wages at the rate of Rs. 30.06 up to November 30, 1957 and at the rate of Rs. 36.56 up to December 31, 1959 and at the rate of Rs. 36.56 plus Rs. 8 from January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1961 and Rs. 36.56 plus Rs. 10 from January 1, 1962. The claim of the respondents was that they were entitled to difference in the salary from July 1, 1957 to January 31, 1964. Respondents 2 to 6 claimed in the petition that the arrears of pay be calculated and necessary certificate be issued for the recovery of the same from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. In Special civil Application No. 459 of 1966, respondents 2 to 10 claimed the difference in the salary from April 1959 to January 31, 1964. They also claimed that the arrears of pay be calculated and necessary certificate be issued for the same as arrears of land revenue.

(2.) THE petitioner objected to the said claim and denied the abovementioned contentions. They also contended that the claim of the applicants was barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, by the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner also contended that such an application was not maintainable under S. 33C(2) of the Act and the labour court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide such applications. The legal objections about the maintainability under S. 33C(2) of the Act were tried as preliminary issues. Respondent 1 came to the conclusion that the application was maintainable under S. 33C(2) of the Act and the claim of the applicants for recovery of the moneys which were due to them was not barred by limitation. It is against this judgment and order of respondent 1 that these special civil applications have been filed in this court. Respondent 1 had consolidated Recovery Applications Nos. 88 and 89 of 1965 and had delivered a common judgment. In this court Special Civil Applications Nos. 458 and 459 of 1966 were heard together and common arguments were advanced and, therefore, we will dispose of both these petitions by this judgment.

(3.) WE will consider these points in the order in which they are argued. With regard to the first two points the argument of Sri Vyas is that legislature had amended S. 33C by Act 36 of 1964 called the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1964. The Act was amended, submits Sri Vyas, because of the various decisions given by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of S. 33C as was worded prior to its amendment. In the case of Central Bank of India, Ltd. v. Rajagopalan [1963 - II L.L.J. 89] it was held by the Supreme Court that for the remedy under Sub -section (2) of S. 33C of the Act no limitation was provided in the Act. It was further held that provisions of S. 33C(2) of the Act were wider and covered cases which did not fall under Sub -section (1) of S. 33C of the Act and that under the provisions of Sub -section (2) of S. 33C the labour court has jurisdiction to decide not only the amount in dispute between the employer and employee but the right of the employee to recover the amount from the employer in a case where that right was challenged by the employer. The contention of Sri Vyas is that by the amendment of Act 36 of 1964, the legislature has amended the provisions of S. 33C so as to provide for the limitation for obtaining a relief under Sub -section (2) of S. 33C. According to Sri Vyas, S. 33C is in the nature of a provision for execution of a decree for the money due (sic) or the money due under Chap. V of the Act. The workman who wants to claim any money due to him under the provisions of S. 33C has to make an application within one year as provided for in first proviso to sub -section (1) and if in the course of hearing that application a question as to the amount of money due or the money value of the benefit due is raised, the appropriate Government has to specify a labour court to decide the issue and that labour court has to decide the issue regarding the money due or the money value of the benefit.