LexTHE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. versus P. S. RAJAGOPALAN ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Sociltt de Traciion et D' El1ctricit1 So~iett Anonyme •• Kamani Engineering Company 1 Jd. Sh•h J, 1963 April 19 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. benefit of the view of the High Court on those questions .. The appeal will therefore be allowed, and tne proceeding remanded to the Court of First Instance to be heard and disposed of according to Jaw. Costs in this Court and before the Di vision Bench of the High Court will abide the result of the proceedin~ taken pursuant to this order in the Trial Court. Appeal allowed. Gase remanded. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. v. P. S. RAJAGOPALAN ETC. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA, J. C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGARjj.) Industrial Disputes-Application claiming •pecial allo- wance for operating the adding machine-Power of Labo1tr Court -Limitation-l'lastry Award-Industrial Dispute• Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), s. 33C(2). • Applications were made by four respondents under s.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I !H7, contending that be- sides attending to their routine duty as clerks, they had been ope- rating the adding machine provided for use in the clearing depart· ment of the appellant Bank during- the period mentioned in the. list annexed to the petitions and hence each of them was enti- tled to the payment of Rs. IO/· pm, as special allowan.ce for operating the adding machine as provided for in para 164(b)(l) of the Sastry Award. The appellant Bank raised certain objections but these Were rejected by the Labour Court which held that the respondents were entitled to the amounts claimed .... 3 S;C.R.. SUPREM:E COURT REPORTS 141 by them and the oame were ordered to be paid. The appellants came to this Court by special leave. The contentions raised in this court were that s. 33C(2) did not apply in the present case and the Labour C'urt had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the applications made by respondents as claims made by them were outside the scope of s. 33C(2) which postulated the existence of an admitted right in a workman and did not cover cases where the said right was disputed. Moreover, special allowance could be claimed only by comptists and as the respondents had not even claimed that they were comptists, their applications should have been rejected. Htld that s. 33C(2) takes within its purview ca~es of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in term of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. For the purpose of making the necessary determination under s. 33C(2), it is open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workman's right rests. There is a diotinction between s. 33C(2) and a. 36A. Whereas s. 33C(2) deals with cases of implementation of indi· vidual rights of workmen falling under its provisions, s, 36A deals merely with a question of interpretation of the award where a dispute arises in that behalf between the workmen and the employor and the appropriate Government is satisfied that the dis1mte deserves to be r~solved by reference under s. 36A. The scope of s. 33C(2) is wider than that of s. 33C(I). Claims made under s. 33C( 1) can be only those claims which are referrable to oettlement, award or the relevant provuions of Chapter V-A, but those limitations are not to be found ins. 33C(2). Three categories of claims mentioned ins. 33C(l) fall under s. 33C(2) and in that sense s. 33C(2) can Itself be deemed to be a kind of execution proceeding, but it is pos· sible that claims not based on settlements, awards or made under the provisions of Chapter V-A may also be competent under s. 33C (2). Hold that respondents' claim for special allowance "" co111ptists solely on the ground that they could be described aa ,.dding machine operators could not be sustained. No period of limitation is provided for an application .. ~ under s. 33C(2). 196J C1 nlral Bank of Indio Ltd. •• I'. S, Rojt1gopaJan 1963 Central Bank of Tndia Lid. v. P. S.' Rajagopalan Gojendrogadka.- I. 142 SUPREME COUllt REPORTS [1964] vor .. Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Klmrbarula, (1962) I L.L.J. 234, M/8. Kasturi and Sons (P) L!d. v. Shri N. Salita· teesu·aran [1959] S.C.R. I, Shri,Ambic;1 Mill< Go. Lid. '" Shri S 11. B!w.it, [1961] 3 S. C.R. WO and M/«. Sawalrain Ramprasad Mills Go. Ltd. Akola v. Baliram, (1962) 65
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.