India Iron Works vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 13.06.2001 impugned at Annexure-F to the petition. The petitioner is also assailing the order dated 11.12.2001 and 28.10.2003 impugned at Annexures-P, Q and R.

The instant case has a chequered history. The second respondent who had been dismissed from service had raised a dispute in Ref. No. 23/84. By the award dated 16.11.1985, reinstatement was directed with full backwages. Though the award was published to became enforceable, it had not been given effect to. In that view, the second respondent had sought for benefits accruing under the award by filing an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (''I.D. Act'' for short) in Application No. 104/1986. The said application was disposed of on 28.02.1990 directing the petitioner herein to pay the sum of Rs. 21,537.40ps. To the said extent, there is quantification of the dues which is made under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act. The real dispute between the parties which has led to the instant petition has arisen thereafter.

The second respondent though did not file any fresh application under Section 33(c)(2) had computed the amount due in a sum of Rs. 74,293/-. The recovery of the said amount was sought to be obtained under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act. In addition to the said amount, all further computations were also made by the second respondent himself without filing any application under Section 33(c)(2) and sought for recovery of the said amount as arrears of the land revenue. The amount as computed by the second respondent was to the tune of Rs. 3,85,849.60. In this regard, the notice dated 13.06.2001 was issued by the official respondents herein and subsequent action was taken for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the action of the respondents in seeking to recover the amount under Section 33(c)(1) even before there being computation of the amount under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act.

The second respondent has filed the objection statement and would seek to sustain the action by the official respondents to recover the amount under Section 33(c)(1) of the I.D. Act. Learned counsel for the second respondent has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. BPL Refrigerators, Kadugodi, Whitefield, Bangalore, Rep. by its Director v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Karmikara Bhavana and Others reported in CDJ 2007 KAR HC 260. In the said decision, it has been held that when once the order of dismissal of the respondents is inoperative, then they are entitled to maintain an application under Section 33(c)(1) of the Act. Though reliance is placed on the said decision, in my opinion, it is to be seen that the petitioner herein was before this Court in an earlier petition in W.P. No. 7779/1991 wherein the action of the second respondent seeking to recover the amount under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act had been assailed. It is also to be noticed that the said writ petition had been dismissed for default and before the same was restored, subsequent action at the instance of the second respondent under Section 33(c)(1) to seek recovery of the further amounts had taken place.

In that background, if the order dated 09.01.2002 passed in W.P. No. 7779/1991 is noticed, the learned Single Judge while taking note of the inter se contentions between the petitioner herein and the second respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings under Section 33(c)(1) could be initiated only if there is no serious dispute with regard to the amount payable. It is held therein that if there is dispute with regard to the amount, the computation would have to be made under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act. At that stage itself, the learned Single Judge had noticed that a dispute had been raised on behalf of the petitioner herein with regard to the amount of Rs. 74,293.20ps which was being claimed as computed by the second respondent himself. If this observation of the learned Single Judge is kept in view, subsequent computation of the amount at Rs. 3,85,849.60ps which is made by the second respondent for recovery as arrears of land revenue is also a disputed amount inasmuch as the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court in this petition.

Therefore, if that be the position, in view of the observations made in W.P. No. 7779/1991, the entire claim beyond the initial claim of Rs. 21,537.40 would have to be considered as the amount in dispute between the parties regarding which the computation would have to be made under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, if these aspects are kept in view, the action initiated by respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 at the instance of the second respondent which is assailed in the instant petition would not be sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The second respondent would however have the liberty of filing an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act before the competent Court and seek computation of the amount.

Considering the fact that there has been several litigations between the parties and in that circumstance, this Court has held that the second respondent is required to file an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act, it is made clear that when such application is filed, the petitioner herein shall not urge a ground to contend that such application is barred by limitation. In any event, in a proceedings under Section 33(c)(2), such contention in the present facts would not be entertained by the Labour Court and it would be considered on its merits. Further, in view of the long pendency, the Court before which the application is to be made shall also consider and dispose of the matter in an expeditious manner, but not later than six months from the date on which the respondents to the application appear before the Court.

Having arrived at the above conclusion, one another aspect which requires to be noticed is that the petitioner at the first instance has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before this Court pursuant to the interim order. Thereafter on 12.09.2013, a further sum of Rs. 13,840/- has been deposited. Though the petitioner has presently succeeded in the instant petition, considering the fact that the second respondent has been granted the liberty of filing an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act, the second respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount which shall however be subject to the adjustments, if ultimately the application under Section 33(c)(2) is allowed. It is further made clear that even if in Section 33(c)(2) application, no computation is made, the amount withdrawn by the second respondent shall not be recovered.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.