Can Only Invoke Section 33C(2), ID Act, For Computation Of Pre-Existing Benefits; Not To Decide New Issues: P&H HC

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Jagmohan Bansal struck down the order of the Labour Court that ordered payment of overtime wages to a pump operator. The workman filed a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) stating that he had worked for 12 hours a day for almost a decade, but was paid only for 8 hours. The High Court held that the Labour Court was not competent to decide such claims, as Section 33C(2) only applies for the computation of pre-existing benefits; it cannot be employed to decide new issues that require detailed evidence and adjudication. Background The petitioner, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, appealed against the 2013 Labour Court decision that granted overtime wages to a pump operator (respondent). The respondent had been working as a pump operator from 1996 to 2006. He had filed an application in 2007 stating that he worked 12 hours daily but was paid for only 8 hours. He sought differential wages and back pay for the difference. The petitioner argued that the respondent never raised any objection during his employment regarding overtime pay. Since the claim involved disputed questions, they argued it was unsuitable for adjudication under Section 33C(2), ID Act. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that his claim was only for the computation of a benefit already due, which the Labour Court is competent to decide under Section 33C(2). Arguments The petitioner submitted that the Labour Court had breached its powers under Section 33C(2). They explained that this provision is only for computing benefits, once a workman's entitlement has already been adjudicated or recognized. It does not allow the Labour Court to decide if someone is entitled to a benefit in the first place. They petitioner pointed out that the respondent's claim involved contested facts—whether he worked 12-hour days, whether this was documented, and whether the claim was filed within the limitation period. The Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to decide these issues, as they required detailed evidence and adjudication. Conversely, the respondent insisted that he had worked 12 hours a day during his tenure and was underpaid. He argued that the Labour Court rightly calculated his dues. He relied on the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, saying it supported his claim for overtime wages. He maintained that denying his claim would let the petitioner avoid responsibility. Court's Reasoning The court explained that Section 33C(2) is not meant to settle entitlement disputes. It is limited to computing benefits that have already been acknowledged or decided elsewhere. It held that the Labour Court had no authority to decide whether the respondent was even entitled to overtime pay. The court relied on State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey ((2001) 1 SCC 73), to hold that a pre-existing benefit or right is mandatory to invoke Section 33C(2). Further, the court noted that the respondent's claim raised unresolved issues. These included whether the respondent actually worked 12-hour days, whether this was recorded, and whether the claim was filed on time. Such matters required adjudication and could not be resolved under Section 33C(2), as it only deals with computation of uncontested claims. The court also referred to MCD v. Ganesh Razak ((1995) 1 SCC 235), which held that claims involving unsettled entitlement disputes cannot proceed under Section 33C(2). It held that the Labour Court's reliance on this provision was wrong as the respondent's right to overtime wages had never been established. Lastly, the court stated that the proper course for the respondent was to seek adjudication of his entitlement through a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. Until such a determination, it explained that Section 33C(2) could not be invoked. Thus, the High Court quashed the Labour Court's award, ruling it was beyond the Labour Court's jurisdiction. Decided on: 12.12.2024 Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:166057 (Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Presiding Officer, Government Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & Ors.) Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Gakhar with Mr. Shashi Bhushan Galav Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Aminder Singh Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Can Only Invoke Section 33C(2), ID Act, For Computation Of Pre-Existing Benefits; Not To Decide New Issues: P&H HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags