Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation Ltd vs The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court & Anr.

“10.

From the afore-cited judgments and reading of Section 33C(2) of ID Act, it is clear that that there should be prior confirmed liability of the employer to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court under the said section. The said liability may arise on account of award/judgment passed by court or on account of an instrument executed between the parties. In the absence of already determined liability, the employee cannot approach Labour Court under the said sub-section.

11.

In the case in hand, the respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer. He was retrenched alongwith other employees on account of closure of the Unit. He was paid 3 months’ salary in terms of Service Bye- Laws, 1980 of petitioner-Corporation. The petitioner is claiming that respondent was not workman and respondent is claiming that he was workman in terms of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. It was a disputed question whether respondent was workman or not. The question could not be adjudicated by Labour Court while exercising power conferred under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act. From the arguments of both sides, it is difficult to conclude that there was no dispute between the parties or Management had raised frivolous or vexatious issue to deny claim of the respondent.

12.

The Labour Court in exercise of power under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act cannot determine entitlement of retrenchment compensation. It can order to employer to pay already determined compensation. Had any other Court already decided question of entitlement or petitioner, at any stage, accepted to pay at par with other workers, the Labour Court could proceed to exercise power under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act. The Labour Court has adjudicated disputed questions and thereafter ordered to pay to respondent at par with other workers. Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act is sort of execution provision and in the absence of already adjudicated/determined entitlement to retrenchment compensation, the Labour Court could not ask the petitioner to pay retrenchment compensation like other workers. Compassion, sympathy or allegation of violation of any vested or fundamental right cannot vest jurisdiction in Labour Court or Tribunal. Labour Court is a creature of ID Act, thus, it cannot travel beyond or contrary to provisions or limits of ID Act. It has no inherent power though it carries ancillary powers which are necessary to exercise powers vested in it.

13.

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order(s) deserve to be set aside and accordingly set aside. All the petitions are hereby allowed. The respondents are at liberty to avail remedies as permissible by law. The amount deposited by petitioner with this Court is ordered to be refunded.”