STATE OF UP versus BRIJPAL SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 27-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UP 
A 
v. 
BRIJPAL SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 
[RUMA PAL. DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 33C(2), 33A, and 10-
Termination of service of workman appointed on temporary basis-Stay by 
High Court-Six years thereafter, without rejoining duty, relying on the stay C 
order, application filed by workman under Section 33C(2) seeking salary 
and bonus for those years-Held: labour Court did not have jurisdiction to 
adjudicate the application in an undetermined claim-Ti/I adjudication by 
appropriate forum, workman could not ask labour Court under Section 
33C(2) to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis compute his D 
wages. 
Respondent was appointed as seasonal clerk on temporary and adhoc 
basis with the appellant. On his services being terminated, he filed a writ 
petition in High Court, wherein a stay was granted. After a gap of six years 
therefore, without having rejoined duty in meanwhile, relying on the stay order, E 
respondent filed an application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 before Labour Court seeking salary and bonus for those years. In 
response, appellants contended that since writ petition was pending, Labour 
Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute. However, 
Labour Court allowed the application, and writ petition of appellant against F 
that was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The Labour Court has erred in allowing the application filed 
under Section 33C(2) of the l.D. Act and ordering payment of not only the G 
salary but also bonus to the workman although he has not attended the office 
of the appellants after the stay order obtained by him. (641-DI 
2. The appropriate forum where question of back wages could be decided 
is only in a proceeding to whom a reference under Section I 0 of the Act is 
made. The Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the H 
633 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A functions of.an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the 
respondent which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately 
be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under 
Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to 
adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under Section 33C(2) of 
B the I.D. Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by 
the appropriate forum, the respondent-workman cannot ask the Labour Court 
in an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act to disregard his 
dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to compute his wages. It is, therefore, 
impossible to accept the arguments that the respondent-workman can file 
application under Section 33C(2) for determination and payment of wages on 
C the basis that he continues to be in service pursuant to the said order passed 
by the High Court. (641-A, B, CJ 
Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand, (1978( 2 SCC 144, 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razek and Anr., (1985] 1 SCC 
D 235 and State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey and Ors., (2001] I SCC 
73, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5910 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.2002 of the Allahabad High 
E Court in C.M. W.P. No. 36406of1995. 
F 
Dileep Tandon and Praveen Swarup for the Appellants. 
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, R. Krishnamoorthi and Mohan Pandey with him 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 9.1.2002 
G passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ 
Petition No. 36406 of 1995 where the High Court dismissed the writ petition 
filed by the appellants - The State of U.P. & The Regional Food Controller, 
Meerut Region, Meerut. The respondent was appointed as Seasonal Clerk on 
temporary and ad hoc basis in the office of the Senior Marketing Inspector 
H on stop gap arrangement. The appointment order dated 22.4.1987 reads thus: 
J 
I !t 
STATE OF UP v. BRIJPAL SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
635 
Dated:22.4.1987 A 
ORDER 
Following persons are appointed in this district on the post of 
S.A. Clerk at the place mentioned in front of their name vide order No. 
97/68/S.V.A. 1.2.87 dated 20.4.1987. Food Controller of the Department B 
and direction is give
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.