AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge in writ proceedings here is to the impugned order of the Labour Court, Jullun-dur, of November 24, 1980,
u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') awarding to the respondent Dr.S.P.Tewari a sum of Rs. 3,770/- on
account of his claim for leave salary and pay in lieu of notice.
A reference to the material on record shows that one of the issues raised before the Labour Court was whether or not Dr. S.P. Tewari was a
workman in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court proceeded lo give a finding on this issue, in favour of Dr. Tiwari and thereafter
made an award in his favour in the sum mentioned earlier.
It is well settled that the scope of Section 33C(2) of the Act is indeed limited in that the right or the benefit which is sought be computed in
proceedings thereunder must be an existing right, that is to say, a right already adjudicated upon or provided for. In other words, it is only an
existing right that can constitute the founda-tion of a claim u/s 33C(2) of the Act. This was so held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Paramjith
Kaur ILR (1992) P&H. 312, which in turn was founded upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Limited Vs. The Workmen and Another, and Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameswar and Others, .
Seen in this context there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 33C(2) of the Act in
adjudicating upon the issues raised between the parties and in making the award in favour of the respondent Dr. Tiwari.
The impugned award of the Labour Court is consequently hereby set aside and this writ petition is thus accepted. In the circumstances,
however, there will be no order as to costs.