AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14th Nov., 2007 passed by the learned Labour Court Jalgaon thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'' ].
It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner. Is entitled to certain monetary benefits in view of the Award passed by Justice Manisana Commission. The petitioner therefore filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act which is rejected, hence the present petition,
Shri Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application. He submits that the claim of the petitioner is based on the recommendations of the Manisana Award and as such the learned Labour Court ought to have awarded the amount as demanded by the petitioner in the claim annexed with the application.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Neena Murudeshwar Vs. Key Publication Ltd. and Others, .
Shri Dankh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the contrary submits that the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected the application. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Krishnan and Another Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and Another,
It is settled law that jurisdiction of the Labour Court u/s 33-C (2) of the Act is very limited. It is in the nature of execution proceeding. Unless a party applying before the Court has a pre-existing or pre-adjudged right, the proceedings u/s 33-C (2) of the Act are not tenable. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of D. Krishnan and another v. Special Officer, (cited supra) is well placed.
In the present case, though the petitioner rests his claim on the report of Justice Manisana Commission, it cannot be said that the claim of the petitioner has been adjudged by any competent authority.
In that view of the matter no infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Labour Court while rejecting the application.
It is needless to state the petitioner would always be at liberty to get his daim adjudged before a competent forum.