NAMOR ALI CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS versus CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 16-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

205 
NAMOR ALI CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS 
v. 
/ 
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
LTD. AND ANOTHER 
November 16, 1977 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
lndus:rial Disputes Act, 1947-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-lnterpreta-
tin11 of uctio11 33C(I) and (2). 
The appellants, workmen of the respondent company, filed an application 
under section 33C(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the 
Labo~r 
Court asking it to compute their wages due from the respondent on the basIS 
of certain settlements said to have been arrived at between them 
and 
the 
management. Holding that each of the workman in the Assam Sector 
was 
also entitled to take advantage of the settlement between the company and its 
emplo}'ees in West Bengal, the Labour Court allowed their application in part 
rejecting only that portion of the claim of the workmen for Rs. 13/~ p.m. from 
Feb. 1971 to Mar., 1972. The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ application 
fiTed by the management and quashed the order of the Labour Court. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : (I) The High Court Committed an error in narrowly interpreting 
section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There are two parts of 
the sub.section (2) of section 33C of the Act. The first part is concemed 
with the money claim simpliciter and the second part speaks about computa· 
tion in terms of money of any benefit to which the workman 
is 
entitled. 
Where any workman is entitled to receive from employer any money and if 
any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may be 
E 
decided by the Labour Court. The expression "if any question arises as to the 
amount of money due" embraces within its ambit any one or more of four 
kinds of disputes, namely: (1) Whether there is any settlement or award as 
alleged? (2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive from the employer 
any money at all under any settlement or an award etc. ? (3) If so, what 
will be the rate or quantum of such amount ? and, ( 4) Whether the amount 
claimed is due or not ? A dispute as to all such questions or any of them 
would attract the provisions of section 3 3C (2) of the Act and make 
the 
F 
remedy available to the workman concerned. If the right to get the money 
on the basis of the settlement or the award is not established, no amount of 
money wm be due. If it is established, then it has to be found out, albeit, 
ii may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due. For finding it 
out, it is not necessary that there should be a dispute as to the amount of 
money due also. The fourth kind of dispute will 
be 
covered 
by phrase 
"amount of money due". [207 A, C-H, 208 A] 
Central Ban~ of l~dia Ltd, .v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. (1964) 3 S.C.R. 
G 
140; R. B. Bans1la/ Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court Nagpur & Ors. 
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 580; and Sahu Minerals and Propeties Ltd. v. Presiding 
Officer, Labour Court and others, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745, followed. 
(2). Satisfaction o! the appropriate Goven1ment which is spoken of in 
sub·s~ct1op. (1) of section 33C of the Act in their prima facie satisfaction when 
a claun is made by any workman before the Government for issuance of a 
ce~ificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount due. 
If the appro-
H 
pnate _Government finds that. the amount clai"!ed. by the workman is due and 
~here 1s no sue~ dISpnte "".h1ch needs any !"11ud1cation by the Labour Court 
in accordance with sub.section (2) or the dispute raised is not bona fide, then 
A 
B 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 
the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector 
who shall_ proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land 
revenue. [208 D-E] 
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 
977, not applicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 1973. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
2-5-73 of the Gaubati High Coui:t in Civil Rule No. 778 of 1972. 
l
M. K. Ramamurthi, A. K. Ganguly and D. P. Mukherjee for the 
-
Appellants. 
c 
D 
Nimz De, M. K. Banerjee, S. M. Mandel, A. G. Menesses for res-
pondent No. 1 
The Judgment of the Court wa·s delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judg-
ment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated the 2nd of May, 
1973 setting aside the order of the Labour Court, Gauhati dated. the 
26th July, 1972. The facts are in a ve

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