MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK VIKAS NIGAM Vs. SHYAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.2.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhar in Case No.07/IDCLAIM/2018.

(2.) The petitioner was previously known as M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd. and now known as Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation. The respondent is an employee of the petitioner/Corporation, who is working on daily wages. That, the respondent/employee filed an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the I.D. Act) in which it was stated that he is working in the establishment since 21 years and, therefore, as per the circulars issued by the State Government regarding payment of special allowance of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- on completion of 10 years and 20 years of service, he is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,64,000/-. The petitioner/Corporation filed its reply and contended that under Section 33 (C) (2) of I. D. Act only pre-determined claims can be adjudicated. The proceedings under 33 (C) (2) of I.D. Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and if therefore, is a dispute regarding entitlement of an employee to receive the amount then the same cannot be decided in such proceedings. It has further been contended that the circular dated 6.9.2008 is not applicable on the petitioner and, therefore, the claim is not maintainable. That, the statement of both the parties was recorded. Ultimately, the Labour court has passed award dated 13.2.2019 and held that the respondent is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- from the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner/Corporation has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Award passed by the Labour Court is illegal. He submitted that while deciding the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner, the learned court below while deciding the said issue, has erred in placing reliance upon M.P. Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari (Seva Ki Sharte) Nigam, 2013. The said rules stands repealed by order dated 7.10.2016 issued by the State Government. He further submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider that circular dated 6.9.2008 is not applicable upon the petitioner/Corporation. The witness of the petitioner had specifically stated that government circulars are not applicable on the Corporation unless adopted and, therefore, also respondent is not entitled to receive any amount. He further submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred in relying upon statement recorded in some other case. He also submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider that the proceedings under Section 33 (C) (2) of I.D. Act are in the nature of execution proceedings. The application is maintainable where the right of a worker is pre-determined by an award, settlement or under any provision of the Act and only quantification is required is to be done. In the present case, no such award, order or settlement has been brought on record wherein it has been held that the respondent is entitled to receive the amount as per circular issued by the State Government. He further submitted that, the learned Court below has failed to consider the judgment of Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and another: reported in (1995)1 SCC 235 an it has been held thus: