MANAGEMENT KANNAMANGALAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY TIRUVANNAMALAI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Labour Court ordered the petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the second respondent herein, Salesmen in the Village Fair Price Shop. THE Management, viz. the appellant herein, while denying the claim, specifically stated that the services of the second respondent-workman were not regularised and that the petition was not maintainable. However, the grievance of the appellant is that the Labour court had not even framed an issue with regard to the maintainability of the petitions and granted the relief prayed for. THE learned single Judge also, while accepting the case of the respondent, dismissed the writ petition and therefore, this writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) MR. M.S. Palanisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management submitted that the second respondent was not recruited in accordance with Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 therefore, he is a backdoor entrant. His recruitment was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He denied that there was any settlement at any point of time between the workman and the appellant-Management under Section 12(3) of the Act. The claim for payment under Section 33C(2) of the Act is not an ascertained claim and therefore, the Labour court could not have ordered the petition under Section 33C(2) without this issue being decided. Learned counsel submitted that the entitlement of the second respondent will be governed by G.O. Ms. No.238, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 19.10.2000 and not G.O. Ms. No.131, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.6.1999. He also referred to G.O. Ms. No.3, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 6.1.1994 to show that the claim of the second respondent cannot be accepted.

(3.) IN A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 743 (supra), the Constitution Bench considered the scope of the claims under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. According to the second respondent herein, this would support his case. Briefly, the Constitution Bench held that, "IN construing Section 33C(2), we have to bear in mind two relevant considerations and that industrial disputes cannot be brought within the purview of Section 33C(2)." "IN our opinion, on a fair and reasonable construction of sub-section (2), it is clear that if a workman's right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may have to be determined by the Labour court". "Claim under Section 33C(2) clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may in some cases to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of that right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the mean determination which has been assigned to the Labour court by sub-section (2)". Therefore, the question regarding the right to receive the benefit must be determined by the Labour Court, if it is raised.