(1.) FIVE cases of different sets of persons were filed before Presiding Officer, Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, kanpur Nagar under section 33c (2) of Industrial disputes Act. The cases were registered as LCA no. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, all of 1998. All the five cases were decided by common order dated 17-11-1998. These five writ petitions are directed against the said order. All the persons, who were applicants in the LCAs before Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, had claimed that they had worked at Food Storage Depot, Fafehpur of petitioner-Food Corporation of India in between november, 1994 to December, 1997 (three years) but they had not been paid their wages. Food corporation of India out rightly denied the engagement of the applicants. The stand of FCI was that no claimant had ever worked with it. None of the applicant? filed any evidence to show that they had ever worked with the petitioner, except their identity cards. The allegation that about 100 workmen were not paid single penny for their entire service period which was of three years was fantastic on the face if it.
(2.) THE question is as to whether in view of the dispute regarding factum of employment engagement itself provisions of section 33c (2) of I. D. Act are applicable or not. Section 33c (2) of the I. D. quoted below:-
(3.) BOTH the parties have cited several authorities on this proposition. Learned Counsel for the applicants before the Labour Court placed reliance upon the constitution Bench of Authority of the Supreme court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan, 1963 (7) FLR 141 (SC ). The Supreme court has held that section 33c (2) is applicable, even though a right to the benefit, on which claim of the workman is based, is disputed by the employer. However, in the Constitution Bench authority, it has also been held that in case the employer stated that he had terminated the services of the employee, then under section 33c (2) claim is not maintainable and in the said claim validity of termination order cannot be adjudged. (Para 19 ). The supreme Court clearly held that proceedings under section 33c (2) par take the nature of the execution proceedings and only that much adjudication is permissible, which can be done by an Executing Court. It may be noticed that three Hon'ble Judges of the constitution Bench Authority in Central Bank of india decided another case after about two weeks, i. e. on 9-5-1963, which is in Bombay Gas Com. v. Gopal Bhiva, 1963 (7) FLR 304 (SC), (Constitution bench Authority of Central Bank of India was decided on 19-4-1963 ). In the authority of Bombay gas Com. , it was held that proceedings contemplated by section 33c (2) are in many cases analogous to execution proceedings.