KASHI PRASAD CHAMARIA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated August 9, 1989, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bhagalpur, in Miscellaneous Case No. 55 of 1983 contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder the Labour Court in purported exercise of power under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, accepted part of the claim of the applicant-respondent 2 and declared that there were dues of the applicant-respondent 2 of Rs. 8,968.88 as against this petitioner and that respondent 2 was entitled to recover the same.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the very impugned order would show that the claim of entitlement of the applicant was disputed by the petitioner for which there was no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, namely, the petitioner and as such, according to him, in view of law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another, reported in 1995 (1) SCC 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395 such disputed claim is clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the respondent No. 2's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. In this regard he referred to Para. 5 of the impugned order from where it is clear that the claim of the applicant-respondent 2 for payment of Rs. 370 per month for overtime work taken from him has been seriously disputed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the very notification for payment of such overtime has been declared illegal by this Court. It is, thus, contended by Sri Amit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and bad in law and thus, is fit to be quashed on this ground alone.

(3.) While admitting this writ petition on September 23, 1991 this Court issued notice to respondent No. 2 and stayed the operation of the impugned order (Annexure 1), subject to payment of Rs. 4,000 by the petitioner within a period of two months to respondent No. 2 and the said payment was made subject to the result of the writ application. However, later a petition at Flag A was filed seeking modification of the said order and in the facts and circumstances mentioned therein the Court finally in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that since respondent No. 2 had not been traced out the amount could not be paid modified the said order vide order dated April 29, 1993, and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount in question with the presiding Officer Labour Court, Bhagalpur, by May 19, 1993 through treasury challan or bank draft. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said amount was deposited by the petitioner with the Presiding Office, Labour Court.