GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. MALLIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge is made to an order of the second respondent, Labour Court made in C. P. No. 450 of 1997, whereby an award for pensionary benefit was made in favour of the legal heir of the deceased employee, the first respondent herein.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel on either side. THE affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the order under challenge are perused.

(3.) THE court is of the considered opinion that the award has got to be set aside on the short ground that the application before the lower court itself was not at all maintainable. THE claim petition was filed by the first respondent under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is a well settled proposition of law that before making a claim petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, there should have been a prior adjudication of the claim. But, in the instant case, the application was filed directly seeking for the relief of computation of pensionary benefits. Now, as narrated above, all were put forth as a defence plea. Hence, it is a fit case where first of all, adjudication has got to be made by the appropriate forum and only then, the claim petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act would be filed. To exercise the power of the Labour court under Section 33-C (2), there should have been prior adjudication and actually, the Labour Court, when exercise its powers under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, is exactly an executing court and without prior adjudication, it cannot exercise powers under section 33-C (2) of the Act.