UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus KANKUBEN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 20-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF !NDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
KANKUBEN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 20, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 33-C(2): 
Workmen-Application for recovery of over-time allowance--Claim 
C a/lowed/awarded by Labour Court--Challenge to--Dismissed by High Court--
Letters Patent Appeals dismissed by the High Court holding that application 
for recovery of the claim maintainable -On appeal, held: Benefits sought to 
be enforced under Section 33-C (2) of the Act should necessarily be either 
pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right-Pre-existing 
D benefit/right differs from just and fair benefit/right- Former falls under the 
jurisdiction of Labour Court, and thus a Labour Court could exercise power 
under Section 33-C(2) of the Act but the later does not--Since the employer 
has been questioning the maintainability of the recovery petition right from 
the beginning, the employee is not entitled to the benefit/relief in view of the 
settled position in law. 
E 
Respondents-workmen filed a petition against the employer/Railways 
for recovery of overtime allowances. The Labour Court allowed the 
petition by passing an award. Writ petitions filed by the employer, 
questioning the correctness of the award, were dismissed by the High 
Court and later Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed by the High Court 
F holding that the petitions for claim of overtime were maintainable under 
Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that the true scope and ambit of Section 33-
C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been kept in view by the High 
G Court while deciding the appeals. 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & 
Ors., this Court has rightly held that whenever a workman is entitled to 
48 
--
U.0.1. v. KANKUBEN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. ETC. [PASAYAT, J] 
49 
receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of A 
being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from 
his employer and is denied of such benefit, he can approach Labour Court 
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The benefit sought 
to be enforced under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is necessarily 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 B 
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. 150-G; 51-C-FI 
Director General (Works), C.P. W.D. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., (1999] 9 C 
SCC 167; State of U.P. and Anr v. Brijpal Singh (20051 8 SCC 58 and A.P. 
SRTC v. B.S. David Paul, 120061 2 SCC 282, relied on. 
2. In view of the settled position in law, the appeals are allowed. In 
the peculiar circumstances of the case, if any amount has been paid to any 
of the respondents in compliance of the order of the Labour Court and/ D 
or the High Court the same shall not be recovered. 152-D-EI 
Director General (Works), C.P. W.D. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., 11999] 9 
sec 167, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. I 0252-10269 E 
of 2'003. 
From the Final Judgment dated 28.8.2000 of the Gujarat High Court in 
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 496, 498 to 514/2000. 
Harish Chandra, Ajay Sharma, B.K. Prasad and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for F 
the Appellants. 
Ms. Meera Agarwal and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the common 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Giijarat High Court holding 
that the applications of the respondents before the Labour Court (Central) 
Ahmedabad, in terms of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 (in short 'the Act') were maintainable. 
G 
H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
By a common judgment and order dated 4.5.2000 the Labour Court 
allowed the claims made by the respondents-workmen in the recovery 
applications filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act in respect of certain 
claims of overtime allowance which according to them was payable in view 
B of what is called as 'on and off duty' for taking out and bringing in locomotives 
from the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.