BENGAL BUS SYNDICATE Vs. M K ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this rule obtained under Article 227 of the Constitution, Messrs. Bengal Bus Syndicate seeks reversal of the decision dated September 30, 1964, of a labour Court here, computing under S, 33-C, Sub-section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947, the monetary benefits payable by the Syndicate to its quondam employee, (a starter), Chandra Kant Misra, opposite party No. 2, as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_126_AIR(CAL)_1967Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) The preliminary facts leading to such computation are not in the realm of dispute. On April 30, 1962, an industrial tribunal here recorded an award directing the Syndicate (i) to reinstate Chandra Kant to his former job, with continuity of service, and (ii) to pay him all back dues for the period of his forced unemployment within one month from the publication of the award. The award was published in the Calcutta Gazette dated July 19, 1962. See Part 1 thereof at pp. 2084-2090. The Syndicate defied the award. The State Government, therefore, specified, under Section 33-C, Sub-section 2, again, this particular labour Court as the Court for computing in terms of money, the benefit receivable by Chandra Kant, in pursuance of the award: vide the relevant Government order dated February 29. 1964, with an assortment of various figures and alphabets as its number. This is how the labour Court came to be seized of the matter.

(3.) Mr. Arun Kumar Dutt, appearing in support of the rule, addresses me on three points. First: Chandra Kant did not press into service the statutory form Q/2 in making the application he did under Section 33-C, Sub-section 2. By not having done what he should have done, he has placed himself outside the statute. Second: computation of the benefit, in terms of money, as made, is outside the scope of Section 33-C. Sub-section 2. Third: failure to invoke Section 36-A means failure of the opposite party workman's case. I have been addressed on no oiher point.