Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Sham Lal and Others

S.K. Mahajan, J.—Short question raised by the petitioner in this case is whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to compute the benefits in the case of a workman whose right to claim such wages had not been adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction nor recognised by the employer. Respondent No. 1 was employed with the petitioner as daily wager w.e.f. 1.1.1977 and was regularised on 11.12.1979. By filing an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman claimed difference in wages paid to him as a daily wages and payable to a regular employee for the period 1.1.1979 to 11.12.1979 on the ground that he had been performing the same duties and functions as were performed by the regular employees of the respondent and as such, he was entitled to be paid the same wages as were being paid to the regular employees on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The Labour Court allowed this application of the workman filed u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the petitioner to file a chart showing the rate of the wages of a daily wager and regular employee for the period 1.1.1977 and 11.12.1979. This order has now been challenged by filing the present writ petition.

This Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr., (1995) D L T364 has already held in CWP No. 2990/1987, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raghunath and Ors. decided on 20.2.2003 that in case the claim of the workman to be paid wages at the same rate as a regular employee had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer, the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach and consequently the Labour Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the law laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another (supra) and decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raghunath and Ors., in my opinion, the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent/workman u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the alleged claim of the workman had neither been settled by adjudication nor recognised by the management and the same was not an existing or admitted claim. I, accordingly, allow this petition, make the Rule absolute and set aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court leaving the parties to bear their own costs.