U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SHRJ BIRENDRA BHANDARI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 28-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
SHRJ BIRENDRA BHANDARI 
'.JEPTEMBER 28, 2006 
B 
[ARJJITPA9'AYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 33C(2)-Claim filed under 
S.33C(2) for arrears of salary arising out of recommendations of Pay 
C Commission-Allowed by Labour Court-Upheld by High Court-On appeal, 
Held: High Court erred in upholding the order passed by Labour Court as 
scope and ambit of S.33C(2) was not properly appreciated by the Labour 
Court. 
Respondent filed claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial 
D Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of arrears arising out of implementation of 
the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. Labour Court accepted the 
prayer and directed payment. High Court upheld the order passed by the 
Labour Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the application in 
E terms of Section 33C(2) of the Act was misconceived and that the High Court 
wrongly took the view that the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission are 
binding on the appellant-Corporation and dues are payable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. 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 he is entitled to receive from the employer and is denied of such 
benefit, he can approach Labour Court under Section 33 C(2) of the Act. The 
benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33 C(2) of the Act is necessarily 
G a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. The difference 
between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, 
which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls 
within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33 C(2) 
of the Act while the latter does not. (692-H; 693-A-BI 
H 
690 
U.P. STATEROADTRANSPORTCORPN. '" BIRENDRA BHANDARI [PASAYAT,J.) 691 
1.2. When a question arises as to the adjudication of a claim for back A 
wages, all relevant circumstances which will have to be gone into, are to be 
considered in a judicious manner. Therefore, the appropriate forum wherein 
such question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom 
a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. To state that merely upon 
reinstatement, a workman would be entitled, under the terms of award, to all B 
his arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect because several factors 
will have to be considered, to find out whether the workman is entitled to back 
wages at all and to what extent.1693-C-E) 
1.3. Judged in the background of principles set out above, the orders 
passed by the Labour Court and the High Court are indefensible and are C 
accordingly set aside. 1693-F) 
State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors., 12001) 1 SCC 73 
and State of U.P. and Anr. v. Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 58, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4292 of2006. 
D 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24. l 0.2005 of the High Court 
of Uttaranchal at Nainiti:l in Writ Petition No. 4961 of 200 l(S/S). 
Pradeep Misra for the Appellant 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT. J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a 
Learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition filed by it. Appellant had filed 
writ petition with the prayer to quash the order passed by the Presiding F 
Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 144 of2001. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
A claim petition was filed by the respondent No.2 purported to be under 
Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') for G 
payment of arrears relating to difference of salary, leave encashment, arrears 
of dearness allowance arising out of implementation of the recommendations 
of the 5th Pay Commission, The Labour Court accepted the prayer and 
directed payment within a period of two months. Said order was challenged 
before the High Court by a writ petition. 
H 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the application 
in tenns of Section 33 C(2) was misconceived. The High Court took the view 
that the recommendations of 5tt. Pay Commission are binding on the appellant-
corporation and, therefore, dues are payable. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the scope and ambit 

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