STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LALAJI NANJIBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all these special civil applications have arisen from one common order of the Labour Court, Surendranagar, dated 26.9.1995, the same are being taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The respondent workmen in these special civil applications filed application before the Labour Court, Suendranagar under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of their claim of medicial allowance from 1st April, 1982 to 1st March, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 15 per month and from 1st March, 1983 to 30th September, 1988 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. These applications were filed by the respondent workmen on 3rd April, 1993. The claim for medical allowance has been made by the respondents on two Government resolutions dated 7th July, 1973 and 7th April, 1982. All these respondent workmen filed separate applications which were decided under common order impugned in these special civil applications. Hence these sepcial civil applications before this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Labour Court has committed serious error of jurisdiction in granting medical allowance to the respondent workmen under Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. The claim of the respondent workmen was not accepted nor it flows from any award or statutory provision and as such the Labour Court which exercises power of the executing Court under Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act could not have granted substantial claim of the respondent workmen. Their claim should have been adjudicated and granted only on reference, and not otherwise. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of New Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak, reported in JT 1994 (7) SC 476. It has next been contended that otherwise also the claim of the petitioner suffers from the defect of delay and latches. The claim pertains to the period from 1.3.1983 to 30.9.1988. But the application has been filed on 3rd April, 1993 and the same should have been dismissed only on the ground of delay. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that otherwise also the benefits of medical allowance is not available to the respondent workmen under resolution dated 7th April, 1982 as they have not opted for the same.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent workmen contended that the claim of the respondent workmen for medical allowance has been granted by the Labour Court on the basis of its own earlier decision, which decision has been affirmed by this Court and ultimately the SLP filed by the State has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. So once in the case of identically situated persons the claim has been accepted by the Labour Court and it has been affirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court, the Labour Court has not committed any error or illegality much less an error of jurisdiction in acceding to the claim of the respondent workmen. It has next been contended that the plea of jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is not available to them as this pont was not raised before the Labour Court. Further, the right to claim medical allowance by the respondents flows from the government Resolution dated 7th July, 1973 and 7th April, 1982. So the application under Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act was maintainable before he Labour Court. Replying to the other contention of the counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent workmen contended that the plea of delay in filing of the application was not taken before the Labour Court and as such no such plea could be taken in the proceedings under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. In case this plea would have furnished explanation to give out reasons for the delay in filing the application. Replying to the last contention, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that resolution dated 7th April, 1982 contemplates for giving of option but this plea was not taken before the Labour Court and rightly so because the petitioners never sought options from the respondent workmen. A preliminary objection has also been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent workman that these special civil applications deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.