LexTREOGI NATH versus THE INDIAN IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'1 A B 97 TREOGI NATH v. THE INDIAN IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. August 3, 1967 [J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 33C (2)-Labour Court not specified for computing money value of the benefit claimed by workmen under s. 33C(2)--Jurisdiction. Under an award in an industrial dispute, it was held that the ap- pellants-workmen were entitled lb half wages from a certain date to 0 the date they resumed duty. After the final disposal of the companies' appeal, the workmen were allowed to resume duties. Thereafter, a dispute arose as to the amount to which the workmen were entitled. The workmen, by separate applications, applied to the Second Labour Court, West Bengal for determination of the amounts due to them under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The com- panies challenged the jurischction of the Second Labour Court on the ground that the court had not been specified for the purpose of de- D termining the amount at which the benefit claimed by the workmen was to be computed in terms of money under s. 33C(2} of the Act. The preliminary objection was accepted by the Second . Labour Court, against which the workmen filed a writ petition. This peti- tion was accepted by the High Court, but in appeal the High Court dismissed the petition. ' HELD: The appeal must fail. The mere fact that a Laoour Court has been constituted under s. 70> of the Act, for the purpose of adjudication of Industrial Dis- putes as well as for performing other functions that may be assigned to it under the Act does not mean that the court is automatically spe- cified as the Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under s. 33C(2) of the Act .. Section 33C(2) confers jurisdiction ·only on those r Labour Courts which are specified in this behalf, i.e., such Labour Courts which are specifically designated by the State Government for the purpose of qomputing the money value of the benefit claimed by a workman. The Second Labour Court, West Bengal, was never specified by any order of the State Government as one of those Labour Courts which was to exercise the powers or discharge the functions under s. 33C(2). [lOOC-E]. Though the Civil Court• are constituted under s. 13 of the Ben- G gal, ,Ajgra and Assam Civil Courts Act, the power of those courts to take l'Q!lnizance of civil suits and decide them is ·conferred by the Code of Civlil Procedure. It is not by virtue of their constitution un- der s. 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act that the Courts take cognizance of civil suits and decide them. Section 33C (2), in the matter of applications made by individual workmen. is therefore, not comparable with s. 13(2) of the Bengal, A,sra and As"'!n! Civil Courts Act, but in fact, lays down the reqmrement wh1di R must be satisfied before the Labour Churt can take cognizance of "the matter raised before it by the applications of the workmen. ·Section 33C(2) would, thus, serve the purpose in the case of Labour Courts which is served by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure re- lating to cognizance in respect of Civil Courts. [102B--D] · L•P(N)ISU!-8 98 SUPREME COUl\T l\BPOBTS [1968) 1 s.o ... CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 370 of A 1967. Appeal from the judgment and order date\'.I July 22, 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 58 of 1963. E. Udayaratnam and A. P. Chatterjee, for the appellants. B H. R. Gokhule and D. N. Mulvherjee, for respondents Nos. 1-3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~~v•, J.-Q:: !!:! industrial dispute referred to it, the Fifth Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal gave an award, which C was published on September 19. 1955, under which 41 persons, in- cluding·. the 30 appellants who had been dismissed from service by the two Companies, which are respondents t & 2 in this appeal, were directed to be reinstated in service. Under the award, it was held that these appellants were entitled to half their salary from October 2, 1953 to the date of their actual resumption of duty. D According to the appellants, they were not allowed to resume duty by the Companies, even though they offered to do so. The Com- panies did not admit that threre was any such offer and went up in appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and obtained an order of stay of implementation of the award from it. The Labour Appellate ~Tribunal dismissed the appeal, whereafter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.