LexBOMBAY GAS CO. LTD versus GOPAL BHIVA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 709 We think for these reasons that the appeal fails and we dismiss it with costs. Appeal diamiaeed. BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD v. GOP AL BHIV A & ORS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO and K. C. DAB Gul'TA JJ.) lnduatrial Di1pule-Applicatiom under •· 330 (2) lo claim certain benefits uw.ler an Award-Scope oJ s. 330 (2)- 0ategorie• of workera entitled to beneji'8-Limitation for ·application• under•· 330 (2)-Wkether Payment of Wagea A.cl or art. 181 of Limitation Act applicable-lndualrial Diaputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), a. 330 (2j. Petitions were filed by sixteen respondents under s. 330(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming certain benefits under an award made by an Indus•rial Tribunal. The prayer was to compute the benefits in terms of money and direct the appellant to pay the same to them. Many objections were raised by the appollant but these were rejected by the Labour Court which accepted the claim of the respondents and directed the appellant to pay to the respondents the respective amounts specified against their names in the award. Tbe appelJant came to this Court by special leave. The contentions raised by the appellant before this Court were that the award, on which the claim was based, was without jurisdiction and hence the Labour Court should have refused to implement it; that in order to get benefit, the workers must show that they actu.dly worked on all Sundays in the year before September, 1948; and that as the claims of the respondents were belated, those should not have been awarded. Held that the Labour Court would have been justified in refusing to Implement the award if it was satisfied that the / ! 19Q Sri c.,.1 i.1 .. s Comp,., y, Calculla Si.el Ex.U.11 AuacialiMI /.I,. s.,,., I. 1963 M,, 10. • 1963 Bomb'l1 Cos c., Lti., •• G•l•I Bhioa -.· .. , . l, ''" • 710; SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL. diiectl6n in the· award on which the respondents' claim was based, was without jurisdiction, but as that was not actually so, the impugned direction was according to law . ·. The applications made by respondents were competent and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to deal with the quc•tion as to the computation of the benefit conferred on the respon· dents in terms of money. The proceedings contemplated by s. 33C (2) were, in many cases, analogous to execULion proceed- ings and the Labour Court which wa• called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by an industrial employee, was in the position of an executing court and was competent to interpret the award on which the claim was based and also consider the plea that the award, sought to be enforced, was a nullity . HP.Id also, that there was no substance in the argument that since the respondents had not been actually required to work on all Sundays in the relevdnt year, they were not entitled to the benefit given in the award. The test which had to be satisfied by the workers was that •hey could have beenrequired to work on Sundays in that year and not that they actually so worked. Held also, that the legislature has not made any provi 0 sion for limitation for applications under s. 33C (2) and it was .11ot open to the Courts to introduce any such limitation· ori grounds of faimess or justice. The words of s. 33 C (2) were plain and unambiguons and it was the duty of the Labour Court to give effect to the said provisions without any considerations of limitation. The employees who arc entitled to take the benefit of s. 33C (2) may not always be conscious of their right and it would not be right to put the restriction of limitati•)n in respect of claims which they may have to make under the said provision. There was no justification for applying the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and art. 181 of the Limitation Act to the proceed- ings, under s. 33C (2). Claims like bonus are distinguishable from claims made under s. 330 (2). A claim for bonus is entertained on grounds of social justice and is not based on any statutory provision and in such a case, it is open to industrial adjudi- cat.ion to have regard to all the relevant considerations before awarding the claim and in doing so if it appears ,that a claim f~r .Jionus was made after long lapse of time, industrial adjudfoation may refuse to entertain the claim or Govern- ment ·may refuse to make the reference in that bQhalf, 3 S.C.R. SUPREME C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.