Section 33(C)(2) ID Act- Labour Court Has No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Dispute Of Entitlement Or The Basis Of Claim Of Workman: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen.

It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

In this case the workman filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, demanding difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012.  This application was contested by the M/s Bombay Chemical Industries denying any relationship of employee-­employer. The Labour Court allowed the said application and directed the M/s Bombay Chemical Industries to pay the difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012 as claimed in the application. The writ petition filed challenging this order passed by labour court was dismissed by the High Court and therefore M/s Bombay Chemical Industries approached the Apex Court;

In appeal, referring to the judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 235 , Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235,  Union of India and another Vs. Kankuben (Dead) By Lrs. and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 292, the court observed that it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer employee relationship. The court observed thus:

"As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. As held by this Court in the case of Ganesh Razak and Anr. (supra), the labour court's jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is like that of an executing court. As per the settled preposition of law without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (See Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235). 

"In the case of Kankuben (supra), it is observed and held that whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of 7 being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act. It is further observed that the benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act is necessarily a pre­existing benefit or one flowing from a pre­existing right. The difference between a pre­existing 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 33­C (2) of the ID Act while the latter does not"

The court noted that, in this case, there was a serious dispute raised that the workman was never in employment as a salesman and the documents relied upon by him were seriously disputed. Therefore, the bench held that the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Case name: Bombay Chemical Industries vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Case no.| date: CA 813 OF 2022 | 4 Feb 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Counsel: Adv Vishal Yadav for appellant, Adv Vinod Kumar Tewari for respondent

Click here to Read/Download Judgment