M VENKATESAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records from II Respondent relating to order passed by him on 22.8.2005 in Central Claim petition No,59/1996 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Chennai.104 and quashing the said order dated 22.8.2005.) This petition is filed to call for the records from II Respondent relating to order passed by him on 22.8.2005 in Central Claim petition No,59/1996 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Chennai.104 and quashing the said order dated 22.8.2005.

(2.) THE Petitioner in this writ petition was serving as a Deputy Shop Superintendent in the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai against whom disciplinary proceedings were issued for submitting false school certificate. A punishment of dismissal was imposed and modified as compulsory retirement in appeal. Such order was challenged before the tribunal in O.A.No,423 of 1989 and the petition was dismissed. No further appeal has been preferred and the order of compulsory retirement became final. THEreafter, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and filed a petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for computation and monetary benefits from the respondents. THE Labour Court raised the following points for determination. 1) Whether the claim petition u/s. 33(C) (2) of I.D. Act is maintainable? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the claim of Rs.5, 19,855/- from the Respondent?

(3.) IN D.Krishnan and another Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and another, it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and there should be an adjudication of the claim before such a claim is made. Para 12 which is relevant to the present case is as follows: -12. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The fact that proceedings under Section 33 c(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings is in no doubt, and such proceedings presuppose some adjudication leading to the determination of a right, which has to be enforced. Concededly there has been no such adjudication in the present case. It will be seen that the reliance of the appellant workmen is exclusively on documentary evidence placed on record which consisted primarily of the punch time cards and the representations that had been filed from time to time before the respondents. It is also true that the claim raised by the appellants had been hotly disputed by the respondents. The question that arises in this situation is whether reliance only on the documentary evidence was sufficient to prove the case.-