SAMUDRAPUR TALUKA KHAREDI VIKRI SANGHA Vs. RAMKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in all these petitions is to the order dtd. 26/7/2019, passed by the learned Labour Court, Wardha in proceedings under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Basic ground of challenge as raised by Mr. Puranik, learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Sec. 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court has no power to adjudicate upon the claims made by the respondent -employees as the provisions under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are in the nature of an execution. For this purpose, he relies upon the judgments in the cases of State of U.P. and another Vs. Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 58; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vs. The Workmen and another, (1974) 4 SCC 696; H.P. State Electricity Board and another Vs. Ranjeet Singh and others (2008) 4 SCC 241 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Birendra Bhandari, (2006) 10 SCC 211.

(2.) Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-employees submits that the entitlement of the employees arose from the service rules and service book and therefore, it was permissible for the learned Labour Court for exercising power under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to adjudicate the entitlements. In my considered opinion, the provisions under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are in the nature of execution proceeding as indicated in the aforesaid judgments and the learned Labour Court has no power to adjudicate the claims made by the employees. That being the settled view of law, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside and the applications filed by respondents are dismissed.

(3.) Needless to say, this would not prevent the respondents from initiating proceedings for claiming their entitlements in case it is so permissible to be under the relevant provisions of law.