STATE BANK OF INDIA versus RAM CHANDRA DUBEY AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 14-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE BANK OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
RAM CHANDRA DUBEY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33C (2)-Proceeding under-
Scope of-Reference made by the Government to decide whether termination C 
of certain workmen was justified-Labour Court made an award for 
reinstatement without expressing its opinion as regards back wages-Petition 
under Section 33C(2) filed by workmen for back wages-Allowed by the 
Labour Court-Upheld by High Court-Held, the relief of back wages must 
be deemed to have been denied for what is claimed and not granted necessarily D 
gets denied in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding-Further, benefit sought 
to be enforced under Section 33 C(2) of the Act must necessarily a pre-
existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. 
On a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
on the question whether the termination of the respondents were justified, E 
the Tribunal made an award that the respondent workmen were entitled to 
reinstatement. However, the award was silent in regard to payment of back 
wages for the period between the date of termination of the workmen and their 
reinstatement. Appellant challenged the said award in a writ petition before 
the High Court. In that writ petition, workmen raised a contention that they F 
were entitled to back wages, which was refuted by the appellant. However, as 
the challenge to the award was not on that ground, the High Court did not go 
into that question. The said writ petition was dismissed. On disposal of the 
writ petition, respondents filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the 
Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for computation of the 
back wages on the basis of the award and the same was allowed by it. This G 
order was again challenged before the High Court and same was again 
dismissed by it. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that proceeding under Section 33C(2) 
of the Act was in the nature of an execution proceeding by which an existing H 
569 
570 
SUl>REME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A right in favour of the employee under a settlement or an award or under a 
statute could be executed and since there was no order for the payment of 
back wages under the award, no order could have been passed . 
. It was contended by the respondent that the award of reinstatement from 
a particular date would impliedly include award of back wages; that Labour 
B Court was competent to interpret the award under Section 33C(2) and in so 
doing, it would certainly be open to the .Labour Court to expound the exact 
meaning and content of the award as to whether it impliedly awards back wages 
or not; and that ordinarily reinstatement would be followed by an award of 
back wages and when there was no reason to deny the same, the award was 
C deemed to have included the award of back wages. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. When a reference is made to an Industrial Tribunal to 
adjudicate the question not only as to whether the termination ofa workmen 
D is justified or not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of 
examination of the question whether the reinstatement should be with full or 
partial back wages or none. Such a question is one of fact depending upon the 
evidence to be produced before the Tribunal. If after the termination of the 
employment, the workmen are gainfully employed elsewhere it is one of the 
factors to be considered in determining whether or not reinstatement should 
E be with full back wages or with continuity of employment. Such questions 
can be appropriately examined only in a reference. When a reference is made 
under Section to of the Industrial Disputes Act, all incidental questions 
arising thereto can be determined by the Tribunal and in this particular case, 
,F 
a specific q~estion has been referred to the Tribunal as to the nature of relief 
to be granted to the workmen. (574-E-GI 
· 
1.2. Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any 
money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money 
and which h.e is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such 
benefit, can approach Labour Court under Se~tion 33C(2) of the Act. The 
G benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33C(2) of the Act is necessarily 
a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. The difference 
between

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