KEHAR SINGH SAHOTA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kehar Singh Sahota (since deceased) had filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28. 1. 1994, passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, whereby his application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), was rejected. Since the petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition, his legal heirs have been brought on record.

(2.) THE workman Kehar Singh Sahota was working as a Senior Clerk. His services were terminated by the employer, M/s. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Pinjore (respondent No. 2), vide order dated 7. 9. 1979 after enquiry. The petitioner was, however, reinstated with continuity of service and back wages, vide award dated 2. 5. 1989 given by the Labour Court. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of the Act claiming all the benefits like promotion, annual bonus, incentive bonus, earned leave, sick leave, leave encashment, leave travel concession, stitching and washing allowance, etc. that application was, however, dismissed by the Labour Court without going into the merits of the claim on the solitary ground that the petitioner had failed to file a copy of the award.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, since the petitioner was treated to be in service for all purposes under the award, all consequential benefits should follow. The petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service and back wages. Besides, section 33-C (2) did not restrict a claim to the award granted by the Labour Court. A workman could claim from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money under section 33-C (2) of the Act. If any question arose as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may be decided by the Labour Court. The provisions contained in section 33. C (2) thus appear to be wide enough and cannot be treated to be in the nature of executing provisions for the purposes of executing an award. If a workman seeks a benefit under the terms of his employment, the matter may be examined on merits under section 33-C (2) of the Act.