LexCENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. versus THE WORKMEN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
153 A CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION ~ LTD . .. • B I c D • F G • H v. THE WORKMEN & ANR. April 23, 1974 [D. G. PALEKAR AND p. N, }3HAGWATI, JJ.J Industrial Disputes Acl, 1947--Section 33 (C)(2)-I'owers of the Lllbour Court under Sec. 33(C)(2)-What disputes can be determined. The River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., used to employ about 9000 work- inen. The Company had ·been incurring heavy losses for several years and, therefore, retrenchment was undertaken on a large scale. Thereafter, a settle- ment was arrived at on 25-8-1965 between the Company and its workmen, inter alia, providing that there would be no retrenchment for a period of 5 years. Under a scheme of arrangement and compromise sanctioned by the High Court the appellant, Corporation took over the said Company. The Corporation issued fresh letters of appointment in favour of about 5173 out of 9000 em- ployees. The employees who were not takeil over by 1he appellant Corporation moved the State Government and the State Government made a reference on 27th October, 1969, to the Second Labour Court. The Corporation. thereupon, challenged this reference by a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting it asidC on the ground that the queslions referred to the Labour Court did not fall within the jurisdictiOn of the Labour Court under section 33 ( C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes _,\ct. The learned single Judge, Ghose, J. struck down issue no. 4 as not entertainable by the Labour Cou~. but as regards the other 3 issues he was of the view that the Labour Court had jurisdiction. The Union <lid not file an appeal against the order by which issue no. 4 was struck down. But the Corporation went in appeal against the order of the learned Judge in so far as he had held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon issues I, 2 and 3. The Division Bench by its order dated December 14, 1972· dismissed the appeal. It was contended before this Court that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction; to adjudicate on the issues referred to it under eection 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. HELD : A pror:eeding under section 33 ( C) (2) is a proceedin.g in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being 1computed in terms of money the Labour . Court procee~ to compute. t~ benefit in terms of money. Since a proceeding u.nder section 33(C)(2) 1s 1n the nature of an execution proceeding, Jt would appear that an investigation of the nature mentioned in .the reference in question is outside its scope. The Labour Court cannot <l!rrooate to itself the functions of an lndustria1 Tribunal which alone is entitled to ~ake an adjudi- cation on a question such as. the one referred to the Labour court. The workers in the present case virtually claimed re-employment or at least some benefits on the basis of their alleged right to be re-emPloyed. The problolll! raised in the above reference -in effect involve a major indus:rial dispute. investi- gation into which is quite outside the scope of section 33(C) (2). Only on a detailed examination it would be possible to determine whether the workmen had any right to a benefit and if so whether the appellant was liable to satisfy the same. The other question which would be necessary to decide is whether the appellant is a successor of the defunct Company. Problems raised are app~opriate for determination in an Industrial Dispute on a :reference under section 10 of the Act and cannot be regarded as merelv incidental to the com- putation under section 33(C) (2.). [158F; !59C-E; !63A & E] 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] 1 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1779 and A 1780 of 1973. \.- Appeal by special leave from. the judgment and order datect the 14th December, 1972 and Order dt. 20th July, 1973 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal Nq. 252 of 1971 and S.C.A. No. 262171 res- pectively. Niren De, Attorney General, B. Sen, M. K. Bannerjee, P. C. B Bhartari, !. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellants. · Sudhis K. Ray and Rathin Das, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .. PALEKAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave by the c ~ Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.