Labour Court Cannot Grant Monetary Relief Without Pre-existing Entitlement: Bombay HC Clarifies Scope Of Recovery Under Section 33C(2), Industrial Disputes Act

Background

Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala joined Casby Logistics Private Limited and was responsible for accounts work, wages, costing, and collection of cheques. The company transferred him from Mumbai to New Delhi in 2009. Intwala claimed this transfer was illegal as it violated Item 9-A of Schedule IV of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Consequently, he filed a complaint under Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). In 2013, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint. It declared that Casby Logistics had engaged in unfair labour practice under Schedule IV and quashed the transfer orders ('2013 Order').

Following this decision, Intwala sent a notice asking for reimbursement of payments allegedly deducted due to wrongful restructuring of his salary. When this demand went unaddressed, Intwala sent another letter requesting reimbursement.

Receiving no favorable response again, Intwala filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking recovery of Rs. 46 Lakhs. However, Casby Logistics filed a written statement denying his claim, and the Labour Court rejected his application. Aggrieved, Intwala filed a writ petition challenging this rejection.

Arguments

Representing Intwala, Mr. Vinay Menon argued that the Industrial Court's 2013 Order entitled Intwala to Rs. 46 Lakhs. He claimed that the “cease and desist” direction in that order restored Intwala to his original position prior to his transfer, thus entitling him to all benefits he would have received. Further, he submitted that the Industrial Court's order itself was an award, and the Labour Court only needed to quantify the amount Intwala was entitled to from 2009 until retirement. He argued that Section 33C(2) has a wide scope to entertain claims requiring interpretation and quantification of amounts.

Representing Casby Logistics, Mr. Vijay P. Vaidya, argued that the Industrial Court's decision was limited to setting aside the transfer order and did not confer any monetary entitlement. He argued that a Section 33C(2) application cannot be used to establish new rights, especially when Intwala had not demonstrated any statutory, contractual, or customary basis for his claims. Further, he argued that the claim suffered from undue delay, as it pertained to deductions dating back to 2001 but was filed only in 2015.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court held that claims under Section 33C(2) must be supported by a clear entitlement arising from statute, contract, or custom. It observed that the relief sought in the original complaint was only for quashing the transfer orders, and did not explicitly grant any monetary relief. Thus, the court held that the Labour Court was right in declining jurisdiction to entertain a new monetary claim.

Secondly, the court dismissed the argument that a mere “cease and desist” direction against unfair labour practice automatically gave rise to monetary claims. It held that Section 33C(2) proceedings cannot be used to create new entitlements that are not established in prior proceedings. Further, the court noted that determining salary for periods of no work requires separate adjudication and falls outside the limited scope of Section 33C(2) proceedings.

Thirdly, regarding delay in filing claims, the court held that applications under Section 33C(2) should be rejected on grounds of delay when filed without reasonable explanation. It noted that the deductions Intwala sought to recover dated back to 2001, and yet he approached the Labour Court only in 2015 without any justification. Consequently, the court held that Intwala's claim was barred by delay.

Lastly, the court rejected Intwala's argument that the employer's unfair labor practice automatically entitled him to back wages. It noted that the Industrial Court had merely found the transfer to be unlawful; it did not direct any monetary compensation. The court ruled that without a clear monetary award, the Labour Court could not assume jurisdiction to determine compensation.

Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Tile: Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala v. Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Menon with Ms. Kirti Shetty

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Vijay P. Vaidya with Ms. Shraddha Chavan

Click Here To Read/Download The Order