STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRABHAS CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 3. 1. 2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19. 12. 2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara (respondent No. 2) by which the learned Labour Court on an application filed by the respondent No. 1 Prabhas Choudhary under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") awarded Rs. 44,552/- to the respondent No. 1 as salary for the period from March, 2001 to June, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 11,138/- per month, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward in this writ petition is as follows :- THE employees, who were found excessive, were ordered to be transferred by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur and various orders were issued in this regard and at last on 3. 3. 2001, an order was issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur by which as many as 83 employees were ordered to be transferred from Udaipur Zone to the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Hanumangarh. A copy of the said order dated 3. 3. 2001 is marked as Annex. 2. Against the said order of transfer Annex. 2, employees of Irrigation Department filed a writ petition before this Court being Sinchai Vibhag Karmachari Sangh vs. State and Ors. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 949/2001 ). THE further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the order of transfer dated 3. 3. 2001 (Annex. 2), the petitioner Executive Engineer passed an order of reliving the employee, who were working under his control and the respondent No. 1 Prabhas Choudhary was also ordered to be relieved on 8. 3. 2001 and the relieving order was received by the respondent No. 1 on the same day i. e. on 8. 3. 2001. THE further case of the petitioner is that no doubt the order of transfer dated 3. 3. 2001 (Annex. 2) was stayed by this Court in the above writ petition being No. 949/2001 vide order dated 21. 3. 2001 and that stay order dated 21. 3. 2001 was extended on 7. 8. 2001 for one week and thereafter, it was not extended and on 26. 3. 2002, the second stay petition was dismissed meaning thereby after extending the stay on 7. 8. 2001 for one week, there was no stay and the main writ petition is still pending before this Court for final adjudication. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the respondent No. 1 filed an application (Annex. 4) under Section 33- C (2) of the Act of 1947 before the respondent No. 2 Labour Court. Bhilwara claiming salary for the period from March, 2001 to June 2001 to the tune of Rs. 44,552/- on the ground that he was in the service of the petitioner at Udaipur. THE said application of the respondent No. 1 filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 was entertained by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file reply and the reply of the petitioner was closed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court on 23. 11. 2001. THEreafter, on 19. 12. 2002, after hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 2) passed the impugned order Annex. 1 and awarded salary of Rs. 44,552/- to the respondent No. 1 for the period from March, 2001 to June, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 11,138/- per month, repelling all the contentions raised by the petitioner. In this writ petition, the impugned order Annex. 1 dated 19. 12. 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bhilwara has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and some of them are as follows :- (i) That under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, no entitlement in respect of salary can be determined and adjudicated by the Labour Court and only due amount on account of the "entitlement" already adjudicated, could be ordered to be paid, but in the present case, through impugned order Annex. 1, the learned Labour Court treated the respondent No. 1 on duties for the period from March, 2001 to June, 2001, which was beyond the scope of provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 and thus, the impugned order Annex. 1 is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. (ii) That since the respondent No. 1 was relieved on 8. 3. 2001 and that fact has been admitted by the respondent No. 1 himself in his cross-examination (Annex. 6) and when the validity of the order Annex. 2 dated 3. 3. 2001 was under challenge before this Court, therefore, the respondent No. 2 Labour Court should have not entertained the application of the respondent No. 1 filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 and from this point of view also, the impugned order Annex. 1 should be quashed and set aside. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 and it has been submitted by the respondent No. 1 that operation of the order of transfer Annex. 2 dated 3. 3. 2001 was stayed by the respondent No. 2 learned Labour Court through order Annex. R/1 dated 8. 3. 2001 till further orders. Not only this, operation of the transfer order Annex. 2 dated 3. 3. 2001 was further stayed by this Court on 21. 3. 2001 and as per the averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner, that stay order dated 21. 3. 2001 was extended on 7. 8. 2001 for one week. Thus, the amount of salary which was ordered to be paid to the respondent No. 1 was for the period, for which there was stay by this Court. Hence, the application of the respondent No. 1 was rightly considered and decided by the learned Labour Court through order Annex. 1. Hence, no case for interference is made out and the writ petition filed by the petitioner by dismissed.

(3.) THE Labour Court can entertain an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 only when the applicant fulfils the following two conditions :- (i) That his claim should be undisputed one, and (ii) That the benefit claimed should be capable to be computed in terms of money.