GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB ROADWAYS Vs. DYAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GENERAL Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar and the Director. State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Labour Court dated July 30, 1991 (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition) passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction.

(2.) DYAL Singh-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was working as a conductor with Punjab Roadways. Amritsar and was thereafter posted in Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation), Amritsar with effect from November 1, 1980. By an order dated March, 28, 1969, one increment of the workman with cumulative effect was stopped by way of punishment. Again by another order passed on April 18, 1978 one more increment of his was stopped with cumulative effect. He filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as arrears of annual increments from 1969 onwards and another sum of Rs. 2500/- as difference in bonus payable to him. What he alleged was that the aforesaid orders stopping his annual increments were without jurisdiction and, therefore, he was entitled to the annual increments and on that basis to the difference in the bonus as well. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the workman and found that since no regular enquiry was held before those orders were passed, they were, therefore, illegal, void and non est and had to be ignored. The application of the workman was allowed and the management (petitioners herein) were directed to calculate the arrears that were due to him and pay the same. It is this order that is now under challenge in this petition.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties at length and am of the opinion that the impugned order of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. It is by now well settled that proceedings before a Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and before a workman can claim computation of any monetary benefit he has to show that he had a pre-existing right for the enforcement of which he approached the Labour Court. If a question arises as to his any entitlement, the same will of course have to be first adjudicated in appropriate proceedings either under Section 10 of the Act or in any other forum or Court or authority of competent jurisdiction. The scope and ambit of the powers of the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act were considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India v. Raja Gopalan (1963-II-LLJ-89), wherein it ws held as under at Page 97: