LAWS(BOM)-1961-7-1

ABDUL RAHAMAN D LAMBE Vs. R N KULKARNI

Decided On July 21, 1961
ABDUL RAHAMAN D.LAMBE Appellant
V/S
R.N.KULKARNI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 in this case is an employee of the Victoria Lamp Works, at Bombay. Petitioner No. 2 is the Union of which petitioner No. 1 is a member. Alleging that he was in service for 11 years, and that at the time in question, i. e. on the 10th of November 1960, he was earning Rs. 2-8-0 a day, that by closure notive dated 10th October 1960, his services along with that of others were terminated from 10th October 1960, and no payment was made due to him under the provisions of S. 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, he made an application under S. 33-C (2) of the Act for determination of the amount due to him. This application was made to the alabour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Opponent contested the application contending that the payments were already made and in any case the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Court framed two preliminary points for its decision as follows;

(2.) THE Labour Court disagreed with the view of this court and held that it had no jurisdiction, and that it could not issue a certificate. I is this order that is now being challenged before us.

(3.) WE must say at the out set that we have not been able to ascetain the process of thought by which the Court came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction, though the judgment is none too short. Mr. Phadke, however, has tried to support the judgment under review as best as he could. Mr. Phadke invited our attention to the observations of bhagawati J. In the case of S. S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. 1958 SCR 442 at p. 456: (AIR 1958 SC 12 at p. 17) which have been cited by the Labour court and argues that they support the conclusions of the Labour court theat S. 33-C (2) gives jurisdiction to the Labour Court to determine the money value of non-monetary benfits only and that it could be done on a reference to it by the appropriate Government. It is contended that this case was not cited before the Division Bench which decided (1961) 1 Lab LJ 581 (Bom ). And therefore it is erroneously decided.