LexA. SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 5 S.C.R. 408 A. SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 3053 of2008) SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 33C(2) - Interpretation of. vis-a-vis a Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Workmen availed the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and received the special compensation package - Claim for lay-off compensation uls. 33C(2) - Held: Though there is cessation of relationship between the employee and the employer in VRS but if it does not cover the past dues like lay-off compensation, subsistence allowance, etc., the workman would be entitled to approach the Labour Court u/s. 33C(2) - If it is specifically covered, or the language of VRS would show that it covers the claim under the scheme, no forum will have any iurisdiction - On fact, claim pertaining to lay-off compensation having not been part of the VRS, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate u/s. 33C(2) - Thus, matter is remitted to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Though there is cessation of relationship between the employee and the employer in VRS but if it does not cover the past dues like lay-off compensation, subsistence allowance, etc., the workman would be entitled to approach the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act. If it is specifically covered, or the language of VRS would show that it covers the claim under the scheme, no forum will have any jurisdiction. [Para 16) [420-C-D] 1.2 With the said clarification, the matter would have been directed to be listed before the two-Judge Bench. It is not so required. It is noticeable that the claim relating to lay-off compensation is not covered in the VRS. The Labour Court, the Single Judge and the Division Bench declined to entertain the 408 A. SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS v .. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT claim on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. The claim pertaining to lay-off compensation having not been part of the VRS, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate under Section 33C(2) of the Act. Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court and that of the Labour Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law. The Labour Court would finalise the claim preferred under Section 33C(2) of the Act on its own merits within the stipulated period. (Para 17, 18] (420-D- G] National Buildings Construction Corporation v. Pritam Singh Gill and others (1972) 2 SCC 1 : 1973 (1) SCR 40; A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others (2003) 5 SCC 163:2003 (3) SCR 928; A. Satycmarayrma Reddy and others ~: Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur and others (2008) 5 SCC 280 : 2008 (7) SCR 105; Pal v. Pal VRS Employees Welfare Association 2002 - 1 LLJ Bombay 527; Government Soap Factory, Bangalore v. labour Court AIR 1970 Mysore 225;Central Bank of India v. P.S. Rajagopalan (1964) 3 SCR 140; Mis Kesoram Coflan Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar & others (1964) 2 SCR 809; U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. R.K. Shukla and another 1969 (2) SCC 400:1970 (1) SCR 507 - referred to. Case law reference 1973 (1) SCR 40 referred to Para 1 20Q~ (3) SCR 928 referred to Para 1 200~ (7) SCR 105 referred to Para 1 2002 - 1 LLJ Bombay 527 referred to Para6 AIR 1970 Mysore 225 referred to Para6 (1964) 3 SCR 140 referred to Para 10 (1964) 2 SCR 809 referred to Para 10 1970 (1) SCR 507 referred to Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3053 of2008. 409 A B c D E F G H 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2005 of the High Court B c D E F G of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Writ Appeal No. 820 of2005. A. Subba Rao, Adv. for the Appellants. Mohanprasad Meharia, G. N. Reddy, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. I. A two-Judge Bench while dealing with the interpretation of provisions of Sections 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (for short, "the Act") vis-a-vis a Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh noticed that the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 820 of2005, whereby it had given the stamp o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.