CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 11 AHC CK 0187

Devdutt Singh vs The Labour Court, The Executive Engineer-III (Maintenance), U.P. Jal Nigam and The Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 22 November 2005 · Citation: (2006) 5 AWC 4714 : (2006) 108 FLR 350 : (2006) 1 UPLBEC 82

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bharati Sapru, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 35102 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 359 words

Bharati Sapru, J.—The present petition has been filed against an order dated 27.8.1997 in proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Saxena learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the entire record.

3.

I have examined the application filed by the petitioner u/s 33C(2) in which two prayers have been made. The prayers relate to the grant of promotional benefits. It is yet to be seen whether the promotion has been granted or not on the post of Store keeper The Court below has correctly come to the conclusion that in proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Act, these prayers cannot be granted.

4.

It is a well-established notion of law that the proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Act are in the nature of the execution proceedings and building a new case lor gran! of promotional and other benefits cannot be raised in such proceedings which are summary in nature. The scope of proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Act are confined to granting benefits which have crystallized in favour of a applicant as has been settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the a catena of decisions and for this purpose, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, . The same view has been followed in the case of Union of India v. Gurbachan Singh as reported in 1997 (76) FLR 489 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down that the Labour Court while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 33C(2) of the Act is devoid of power to adjudicate upon fresh claims; it can at best interpret an award or settlement and thereafter workout the wages.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show from the record that any rights had culminated in favour of the petitioner as Store Keeper.

6.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 27.8.1997 is hereby confirmed. Interim order, if any, is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.