STATE OF U P Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the office report dated 6th August, 2012 service is deemed to be sufficient upon respondent no.2. No one appears on his behalf nor counter affidavit has been filed. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 27th May, 1997 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The workman had filed a claim application for payment of his salary for the period 14th May, 1993 to 14th May, 1994. The Labour Court after considering the matter calculated the wages and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,480/- along with 12% interest to the respondent-workman.

(2.) THE petitioner before the Labour Court disputed vehemently that the workman did not appear and did not work, inspite of notices being sent and, (2) consequently, was not entitled for payment of wages for the period in question. The Labour Court without adjudicating on this aspect has mechanically granted the wages along with interest. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court finds that disputed questions could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in a plethora of cases.

(3.) IN Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar and others, AIR 1968 SC 218 the Supreme Court held that the right to the benefit sought must be an existing one i.e. already adjudicated upon. In the instant case, the Court finds that the factum as to whether the workman had worked has been vehemently disputed. The Court further finds that the Labour Court has not gone into the question as to whether the workman had worked or not. (3)