M/S BOMBAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES versus DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 04-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 523
523
M/S BOMBAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES
v.
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 813 of 2022)
FEBRUARY, 04 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.33C(2) – Recovery of money
due from an employer – Serious dispute that respondent no.2 had
worked as an employee of appellant – Jurisdiction of Labour Court
– Respondent No.2 filed an application before Labour Court under
s.33(C)(2) demanding difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to
31.03.2012 – It was the case of respondent No.2 that he was working
with the appellant as a salesman – However, the appellant took a
categorical stand that respondent No.2 was never engaged by the
appellant – Held: Once there was a serious dispute raised by the
appellant that respondent No.2 was not in employment as a salesman
as claimed by respondent No.2, thereafter, it was not open for the
Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon
the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and
respondent No.2 – As per the settled proposition of law, in an
application under s.33(C)(2), the Labour Court has no jurisdiction
and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the
claim of workmen – It can only interpret the award or settlement on
which the claim is based – The labour court’s jurisdiction under
s.33(C)(2) is like that of an executing court – As per the settled
preposition of law without prior adjudication or recognition of the
disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the
arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen
shall not be maintainable under s.33(C)(2) of the Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: When there was no prior adjudication on the issue
whether respondent No.2 was in employment as a salesman as
claimed by respondent No.2 and there was a serious dispute
raised that respondent No.2 was never in employment as a
salesman and the documents relied upon by respondent No.2 were
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
seriously disputed by the appellant and it was the case on behalf
of the appellant that those documents are forged and/or false,
thereafter the Labour Court ought not to have proceeded further
with the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Labour Court ought to have relegated
respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of
reference and get his right crystalized and/or adjudicate upon.
Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond
the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The High Court has not appreciated the facts and
has confirmed the same without adverting to the scope and ambit
of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act. [Para 7][527-G-H; 528-A-C]
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and
Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 292 : [2006] 3 SCR 48; Union of
India and another v. Kankuben (Dead) by LRs. and
Others (1995) 1 SCC 235 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 617 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 48
relied on
Para 3.1
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 617
relied on
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.813 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.33482 of 2018.
Vishal Yadav, Ajay Pal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Ms.
Priyanka Dubey, D. N. Dubey, Manindra Dubey, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
Allahabad in Writ Petition No.33482 of 2018, by which the High Court
has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and
has confirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court
IV, U.P., Kanpur Nagar, under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. That respondent No.2 herein moved an application before the
Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in
Misc. Case No.26 of 2012 demanding the difference of wages from
01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012. The said application was contested by the
appellant herein denying any relationship of employee-employer. It was
the categorical stand of the appellant that respon

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.