AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
The petitioner before this Court is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is in the business of providing, inter alia, manpower to various industries, including Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Dehradun (from hereinafter referred to as ONGC).
The present dispute before this Court is between the workers on one hand who have been employed through service provider in ONGC and the service provider on the other hand. An agreement was arrived between the service provider and the Union of workers i.e. ONGC Contract Workers Employees Union on 15.01.2010, which is as follows:
"Short Recital of the Dispute Industrial dispute raised by General Secretary Bhartiya ONGC Contract Karmachari Union over various demands. The dispute was seized into conciliation after prolong discussion and various seized & purgation by the undersigned both the parties in which following were preset and decided that:
Wages of workers of BVG shall be made by 10th of every month.
The management of BVG shall pay Rupees 400/- in addition to minimum wages + 15% from 1.4.2010 and arrears of Rs. 840/-not paid shall be paid in three installments by October 2010.
The Union shall not go on strike atleast for one year.
If any worker remains absent the principal of no work no pay shall be applicable.
If any worker is found habitual absent appropriate disciplinary action shall be initiated."
Broadly as per the terms of the said settlement, the service provider was to pay an amount of Rs. 400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) as additional minimum wages and Rs. 840/- (Rupees Eight Hundred Forty only) as arrears for certain period. This amount has not been paid and therefore the workers Union moved an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) under Section 33C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Section 33C of the Act reads as under:
"33C. Recovery of money due from an employer. - (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VB the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:
Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer:
Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months:
Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.
(3) .......
(4) ......
(5) ........."
Since the amount demanded by the workers could be calculated in terms of money and more importantly it was being demanded on the basis of a settlement between the service provider (employer), and the workers Union, the matter was taken up before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) under the provisions of Section 33C (1) of the Act, and in view of this Court rightly so. Notices were issued to the service provider. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) calculated the arrears and the claims in terms of the settlement and fixed the liability of Rs. 72,59,420/-(Rupees Seventy Two Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty only), out of which Rs. 22,88,380/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Eighty only) was given by the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs. 49,71,040/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakh Seventy One Thousand Forty only) is still due against him. This order of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) has been challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1312 of 2012.
Subsequently, since this amount calculated under the provisions of Section 33C (1) of the Act can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, a requisition was made to the concerned Collector. The recovery is now to be made from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. This recovery has also been challenged by the petitioner now in the second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1012 of 2013.
Heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the ONGC, Mr. Karan Anand, Central Government Standing Counsel and Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State.
Once the settlement was arrived between the parties and in terms of the settlement a part of the amount was paid to the workers, the remedy for the non-compliance of the settlement lies only under sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the Act.
The contention of the petitioner that the matter relates to the provision under Section 33C (2) of the Act is clearly misconceived for the simple reason that the difference between Section 33C (1) and Section 33C (2) is that whereas any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award, the remedy is under Section 33C (1) of the Act. Under Section 33C (2) the remedy would lie where the amount which can be calculated in terms of money is not based on any settlement or award, but is on the "claim" of the workman, which has still to be adjudicated, and therefore the remedy lies before a Labour Court.
In the present case the claim of the workmen is based on a settlement between the employer and the workman. Where a claim is based on a settlement or award, the law provides an easier and quicker remedy under Section 33C (1) of the Act, where there is no adjudication as it will be done under Section 33C (2) by a Labour Court.
In view thereof, no interference is called for. Writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 27.06.2012 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1312 of 2012 and interim order dated 15.05.2013 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1012 of 2013 are hereby vacated. It is directed that under the circumstances of the case, the amount of recovery shall also carry an interest of 7% per annum.