Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Div. II) Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

D. Murugesan, J.—The writ appeal questions the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P. No. 14518/1995 dated July 18, 2003 on

the following substance:

The respondents numbering 1113 were employed either as conductors or drivers in the appellant Transport Corporation. On the ground that they

have put in more than 240 days of services and their services were regularised and they have been made permanent, they approached the Labour

Court, Vellore u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of monetary benefit to which they are entitled to.

By Award dated December 21, 1994, the Labour Court allowed the claim petitions which was questioned by the Transport. Corporation in the

writ petition. The learned'' single Judge concurring with the award of the Labour Court had dismissed the writ petition giving rise to the present writ

appeal.

The two issues raised in the writ appeal are (1) Whether the respondents are regular employees and their services are regularised solely on the

ground that they have completed 240 days of services? and (2) Whether they are entitled to maintain a petition u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act for computation of monetary value?

Before we delve upon the above issues, it would be useful to refer the law settled by the Apex Court, insofar as the jurisdiction of this Court to

interfere with the award of the Labour Court. It has been consistently held that unless the award is perverse and the findings are not supported by

any materials whatsoever and the award is outside the scope of the reference, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the award of the

Labour Court and even the findings which were rendered on the basis of factual aspects.

Insofar as the finding of the Labour Court which was confirmed by the learned single Judge as to whether the respondents are treated to be

regular employees, whose services are regularised and are permanent, in our opinion, such finding requires no interference. The learned Judge had

noted the finding of the Labour Court and had held that the respondent employees though were working as daily rated workers as per the terms

and conditions stipulated in the appointment orders, they had successfully completed 240 days and they have been absorbed permanently as

regular employees on regular time-scale of pay applicable to the respective cadre and in any case, the services are perennial and permanent in

nature and therefore, the finding with regard to permanent status cannot be interfered with. We are, therefore, entirely in agreement with the said

finding as the scope of interference of the finding in the award rendered on factual aspect is very limited. Hence, we are refrained from interfering

with the said finding.

This would take us to the next issue viz., as to whether by virtue of mere fact that the respondents were treated as regular employees, they have

been entitled to approach the Labour Court by filing applications u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when there is no pre-existing right.

A perusal of the award shows that though all the respondents were employed as a daily rated workers for one year as trainees, they were made

permanent. The said finding was based on the various exhibits and settlements produced before the Labour Court. The said finding has been

referred to by the learned Judge, particularly, in para 2 of the impugned order, wherein the learned Judge has referred to that the respondents were

working as a daily rated workers as per the appointment orders issued to them and on successful completion of 240 days they have been on

regular time-scale of pay applicable to the respective cadre.

In order to sustain the petition u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there must be a pre-adjudication as to the claim and correspondingly to

pre-existing rights. The Labour Court is devoid of power and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claim or to give directions on that basis. (See

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, ).

Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is in the nature of execution proceedings to recover dues to the workmen. The claim must be

capable of being computed and there should not be any bona fide dispute as to such claim. The proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, pre-supposes some adjudication leading to a determination of right, which could be enforced. (See D. Krishnan and Another Vs. Special

Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and Another, ; and Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Deputy Labour Commr. and Others, ).

In view of the above law settled and the given facts and circumstances which were discussed in the earlier portion of the order viz., the services

of the workmen in question were regularised and there is no dispute as to their entitlement to the salary on the basis of such regularisation, the

Labour Court would be justified in computing the monetary claim to each of the workmen. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere

with the award of the Labour Court and the writ appeal fails.

In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, interim stay granted by this Court on October 26, 2005 stands vacated and

W.A.M.P. No. 572/2005 stands closed. No costs.