M P SEKAR Vs. M KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the impugned award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. No. 132 of 2000 dated 10.3.2003, to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in law for the reason that when the first respondent, namely, M. Krishnan filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 even after his retirement in the year 1986, the Labour Court, without application of mind as to whether the claimant would be entitled to claim the benefit at all under the said provision, wrongly proceeded to allow the claim and directed the writ petitioner- Organisation to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, as against the claim of Rs. 50,400/-, in spite of the finding that the first respondent retired from service during November, 1986 at the age of 58 years. At the time of entertaining the writ petition, this Court granted interim order of stay on condition that the petitioner should deposit 50% of the award amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order to the credit of C.P. No. 132 of 2000 on the file of the second respondent and on such deposit, this Court also permitted the first respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount and directed the remaining 50% amount to be invested in fixed deposit. Subsequently, the interim order was made absolute and the first respondent had also withdrawn a sum of Rs. 7,500/- out of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing three-fold submissions before the Court, firstly contended that even though the claim petition filed by the first respondent before the Labour Court should have been dismissed as not maintainable, yet, the Labour Court erroneously allowed the claim petition in spite of a detailed counter affidavit having been filed by the petitioner-Organisation refuting the claim. Secondly, it was contended that when no material whatsoever was produced by the first respondent to show that he worked even after his retirement in November, 1986 and in the absence of any evidence, oral or documentary, to show that the relationship of employer and employee continued, the Labour Court committed a serious mistake in allowing the false claim. Thirdly, it was contended that in view of the settled legal position, the claim petition, which was filed on 7.3.2000 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act without establishing any pre-existing right, should have been dismissed as not maintainable when the workman's entitlement itself was in great dispute. Adding further, he also took me through the findings recorded by the Labour Court and submitted that in paragraph-7, when the Labour Court found that in November, 2000, the first respondent was 72 years old and hence the first respondent would have retired in November, 1986 at the age of 58 years in the petitioner-Organisation and in the attendance register and salary register, which have been marked as Exhibits R-4 and R-5 respectively, maintained by the company from the period 1989, the first respondent's name was not mentioned therein, ironically, the Labour Court, without any basis, allowed the claim petition. Therefore, it was contended that when the findings of the Labour Court also clearly show that the claim petition should not have been entertained for the simple reason that even in the year 2000, the first respondent was 72 years old and he also retired from service in November 1986 itself, for the reasons best known to the Labour Court, wrongly allowed the claim petition by directing the petitioner-Organisation to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Arun and Others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Another,2004 3 LLN 579 for the proposition that unless the right to claim wages is established, no application or claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputed Act can be entertained. He also pressed into service yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another, 1995 1 SCC 235 to say that without a prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workman, the proceeding for computation of wages as claimed by the workman is not maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the light of the above judgments, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the award of the Labour Court.

(3.) Since the first respondent died during the pendency of the writ petition, the third respondent has been substituted in his place. In support of the impugned award, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that when Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enables any workman to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the first respondent, having worked in the petitioner-Organisation right from 1956, was compelled to file the claim petition invoking the said provision, since he was not paid huge money under various heads for the periods 1997, 1998 and 1999 and also for the entire period of service rendered in the petitioner-Organisation to which he was entitled to. Hence, he submitted that the award of the Labour Court requires no interference.