SECRETARY, AJMER MERWARA GRAM SEVA MANDAL, RAMGANJ, AJMER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT CUM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Perused the impugned order dated 24.02.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Ajmer. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court-Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947') to entertain the respondent-workman's application for grant of bonus and leave encashment. It was submitted that the jurisdiction under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 can be exercised only for computation of any moneys due to the workman from an employer and not for determining the substantive right to the money per se. It was submitted that neither any bonus was payable to the workman nor was he entitled to any leave encashment. Until the said rights were determined on an appropriate industrial dispute raised by the workman, no purported computation of amounts allegedly due thereon could be done on an application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. Mr. Rupin Kala submitted that the petitioner-Mandal is an organization working on No Profit No Loss and not liable to pay bonus in view of the exemption under Sec. 32 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Similarly the respondent workman was not entitled to leave encashment as he was not a monthly wage earning employees of the petitioner Mandal but only worked on piece rated contracts. The respondent's workman's right on the said two counts have never been determined in accordance with law and hence computation of amounts recoverable thereunder could not have been done by the Labour Court under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947.

(3.) Mr. Jai Prkash Gupta appearing for the respondent- workman drew the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Chamaraju Vs. Hind Nippon Rural Industrial (P) LTD., 2007(114) FLR 1184(SC) to contend that a writ petition where the disputes, relates to a petty amount-(about Rs.17,000.00 along with interest at 10% p.a. in that case) should not be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the instant case, the judgment of the Labour Court only entails payment of Rs.11,586/- to the respondent-workman on account of bonus and leave encashment. It was submitted that consequently the petition not be entertained, no matter what merits.