INDER SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. The case was heard and decided in favour of the petitioners on 31.01.1998 and the Labour Court directed to reinstate the petitioners with further direction to provide permanency of post on which they are working. Against the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, the department has preferred an appeal before the State Industrial Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the Industrial Court by a common judgment dated 31.01.1998 and the same was dismissed. The order passed by the Labour Court has therefore has attained finality as the same was not challenged before the Higher Forum. Although the petitioner have already been reinstated back in service but they are not being paid the wages/salary/pay-scale which is attached to permanent posts against whom the petitioners are working. The petitioners therefore, filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondents have filed reply to the said application. After recording the evidence by both the parties, the Labour Court vide order dated 28.02016 has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner have filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 33C (2) of the Act. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings. It is further submitted that as per Section 33-C (2) of the Act "if any question arises as to the amount of money due then it includes : (i) Whether there is any settlement or award as alleged ; (ii) Whether any workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money at all under any settlement or award ; (iii) If so, what the rate or quantum of such amount will be :" Thus, in the light of said provision, it is submitted that as the petitioners are entitled to receive money from employer and therefore, it was well within jurisdiction of the Labour Court to execute the award. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in the case of Mohar Singh Gurjar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 15.04.2015 as well as the decision passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Prashant Dharmadhikari and Others in W.A. No. 1266 of 2010 decided on 01.11.2011, in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that in the cases where employee is classified as permanent employee against a particular post then, he shall be entitled to all the benefits attached to the post.