TATA STEEL LTD Vs. D S R PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties finally. This writ petition has been filed against the Award and Judgment dated August 24, 2007, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in M.J. Case No. 13/2003.

(2.) MR. Rajiv Ranjan learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent raised two claims under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act for short) before the Labour Court. First claim was payment of Pay Revision Arrears arising out of the settlement, which was disputed by the petitioner-Management that such claim was not tenable as it was raised after taking separation under Medical Separation Scheme (MSS). The second claim was on account of medical reimbursement against which also the contention of the petitioner-Management was/is that the medical reimbursement is being done as per the policy of the Company. He further submitted that it is settled law that the disputed claims cannot be decided under-Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act. He relied on the case in Tata Steel Ltd. v. Awtar Singh 2008 (2) JCR 637 (Jhr) and submitted that after considering the judgment of Supreme Court, this Court held as follows: "8.....The scope of Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act has been well defined. It is in the nature of execution proceedings in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman which has already been adjudicated upon, but the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement/claim and then to proceed to compute the claim".

(3.) IN the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award is set aside. However, no costs.