MUNICIPALCOUNCIL,BHANDARA Vs. VIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Adv. Mr. Jibhkate for the petitioner, assailing the impugned Order dated 5th July, 2002, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhandara, in IDA Case No. 38 of 1999, argued that the very basis for claiming the wages under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was non-existent, inasmuch as the original workman, whose legal heirs wife and children had filed IDA application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, had expired prior to the date of passing of the Award in the matter of regularization of his services. The husband of the applicant Smt. Vimal had died on 6th July, 1996, while the Award was passed on 26th March, 1998 in Complaint [ULPN] Nos. 1561 to 1568 all of 1991. He, therefore, contended that such an Award was a nullity in law and the Award, which was nullity in law, could not be enforced under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for demanding wages under the said Award. Mr. Jibhkate then contended that there is no distant relationship of employer-workman in the light of the above facts and that is another reason why the application was liable to be dismissed. He then submitted that a specific stand was taken in the Written Statement that the Succession Certificate from the competent court was sine qua non for claiming such relief and admittedly no such Certificate was produced on record.

(2.) Lastly, learned Adv. Mr. Jibhkate also argued that in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which are in the nature of execution proceedings, there is no provision to award interest on the amount due. He then submitted that 50% amount has already been paid to the respondent-widow.

(3.) Per contra, learned Adv. Mr. Quazi for the respondent sole supported the impugned order.