MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus GANESH RAZAK AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 20-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
A 
v. 
GANESH RAZAK AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 20, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Section 33C(2)-Proceedings under--
Daily-rated casual workers-Claim to be paid at same rate as regular workmen 
-Disputed Claim-Whether proceedings u/s 33C(2) maintainable-Held, 
No-Adjudication of dispute relating to entitlement-Not within the scope of C 
proceedings u/s 33C(2). 
The respondents, all daily-rated/casual workers of the Mnnicipal 
Corporation of Delhi, claimed that they were doing the same kind of work 
as the regular employees and, therefore, they were required to he paid the 
same pay as the regular employees on the principle of 'eqnal pay for eqnal D 
work'. On this basis, they claimed computation of the arrears of their 
wages at the rate at which the wages were paid to the regular employees. 
Their applications made to the Labour Court u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act led to the award in their favou~. Writ Petitions filed challeng-
ing those awards had been dismissed. These appeals were filed by special E 
leave. 
The appellant challenged the maintainability of the workers' claim 
in proceedings u/s 33C (2) of the Act on the. gronnd that the claim of 
workmen to be paid at the same rate as the regular workmen being 
disputed, proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Act were not maintainable for 
grant of the relief claimed. It was contended that the claim of the workmen 
had neither been adjudicated nor recognized by the employer in any award 
or settlement 
F 
In this appeal, the question for the decision was whether without a G 
prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen to 
be paid at the same rate as the regular employees, proceedings for com-
putation of the arrears of wages claimed by them on that basis were 
maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Act 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
617 
H 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. Where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of 
B 
the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier 
adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating 
to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, 
clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the 
Industrial Dispntes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to 
first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the 
benefit so adjndicated on that basis in exercise of Its power under Section 
33C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudi· 
cated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of 
implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires inter· 
C pretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour 
Court's power under section 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court's 
power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. (626-C·D] 
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., (1964] 3 SCR 140; 
D Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and Ors., (1964] 3 SCR 700; 
Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Ltd. v. Rameswar and Ors., (1988] 1 
SCR 140 and Central Iniand Water Transport C01poration Ltd. v. The 
Workmen and Anr., (1975] 1 SCR 153, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the claim of the respondent workmen who 
E were all daily.rated/casual workers, to be paid wages at the same rate as 
the regular workers, had not been earlier settled by adjndication or 
recognition by the employer withont which the stage for computation of 
that benefit could not reach. The workmen's claim of doing the same kind 
of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as the 
F 
regular workmen on the principle of equal pay for equal work being 
disputed, without an adjudicatio;i of their dispute resulting in acceptance 
of their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion for compntation of 
the benefit on that basis to attract Section 33C(2). The mere fact that some 
other workmen are alleged to have made a similar claim by filing writ 
petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is indicative of the need for 
G adjudication of the claim of entitlement to the benefit before computation 
of such a benefit could be sought. Respondents' claim is not based on a 
prior adjudication made in the writ petitions filed by the some other 
workmen upholding a similar claim whi

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