Prem Kumar Singh and another vs State of Bihar and others

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the State.

The order of the Labour Court dated 30.11.1995 u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') has been questioned on the ground that the Labour Court had committed an error in not allowing the claim of payment of salary of the petitioners for the period January, 1989 to August, 1992. Reference and reliance in this connection has been made to an earlier order of this Court dated 13.1.1994 to show that similarly situated persons, Ram Babu Prasad and others were given such a relief by the Labour Court and as such, there was nothing to distinguish the case of the petitioners and the Labour Court, therefore, has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioners u/s 33-C(2) of the Act.

First of all this Court would really fail to appreciate as to how the cases of the two petitioners is similar to that of the three other persons for whom the order in question dated 13.1.1994 in C.W.J.C. No. 9029/1992 has been passed. In that case it is absolutely clear that they were terminated from service and thereafter they had sought reference u/s 10 of the Act and upon making such reference an award was made in their favour and when that award was questioned by the State of Bihar the order in question dated 13.1.1994 was passed by this Court rejecting the prayer for setting aside the award. Apparently in the case of the petitioners no such reference was ever sought or made by the State of Bihar u/s 10 and therefore, the case of the petitioners does not stand on the same footing.

Even otherwise the Labour Court in the impugned order has given its reason after discussing the evidence on record to conclude that there was no merit in the claim of the petitioners for payment of their salary. The reasons given by the Labour Court in this regard in paragraph 5 of the impugned order read as follows:--

From appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the parties it is evident that the period of employment of the applicants for which the claim of arrears salary have been made is itself disputed. Ext.- B is an office order through which these applicants were appointed only for three months since after 15.5.1987. Through Ext.-C being another office order these applicants appear to have been dispensed with their employment. Ext.-C/1 is a similar letter which has been issued to the applicants and others. In this letter all of them have been given marching order. Ext.-A is photostat copy of order dated 1.7.91 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10169 of 1989. Their Lordships have clearly held that "in view of the fact that the petitioner''s services have been terminated in the year 1988, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ application is accordingly dismissed". Thus, from the order of the Hon''ble High Court also it is evident that their services after 1988 are very much in dispute. In such situation a claim u/s 33-C(2) of the Act cannot be allowed.

In the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the Labour Court does not suffer from any error. The scope of section 33-C(2) is very limited and in fact is only akin to a execution proceeding. In the case of the petitioners there being no earlier determination as with regard to claim of payment of salary the remedy sought before the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) by the petitioners was itself wholly misconceived.

That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed.