The District Manager, Food Corporation of India and The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India vs The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Motilal and Atibal

S.U. Khan, J.—Five cases of different sets of persons were filed before Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar u/s 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. The cases were registered as LCA No. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, all of 1998. All the five cases were decided by common order dated 17.11.1998. These five writ petitions are directed against the said order. All the persons, who were applicants in the LCAs before Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, had claimed that they had worked at Food Storage Depot, Fatehpur of petitioner-Food Corporation of India in between November, 1994 to December, 1997 three years) but they had not been paid their wages. Food Corporation of India out rightly denied the engagement of the applicants. The stand of FCI was that no claimant had ever worked with it. None of the applicants filed any evidence to show that they had ever worked with the petitioner, except their identity cards. The allegation that about 100 workmen were not paid single penny for their entire service period which was of three years was fantastic on the face of it.

The question is as to whether in view of the dispute regarding factum of employment engagement itself provisions of Section 33C(2) I.D. Act are applicable or not.

Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is quoted below:

(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.]

Both the parties have cited several authorities on this proposition. Learned Counsel for the applicants before the Labour Court placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench of Authority of the Supreme Court reported in The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., The Supreme Court has held that Section 33C(2) is applicable, even though a right to the benefit, on which claim of the workman is based, is disputed by the employee. However, in the Constitution Bench Authority, it has also been held that in case the employer stated that he had terminated the services of the employee, then u/s 33C(2) claim is not maintainable and in the said claim validity of termination order cannot be adjudged. (Para-19) The f Supreme Court clearly held that proceedings u/s 33C(2) par take the nature of the execution proceedings and only that much adjudication is permissible, which can be done by an Executing Court. It may be noticed that three Hon''ble Judges of the Constitution Bench Authority in Central Bank of India decided Anr. case after about two weeks, i.e. on 09.05.1963, which is reported in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Bhiva and Others, was decided on 19.04.1963). In the authority of Bombay Gas Com., it was held that proceedings contemplated by Section 33C(2) are in many cases analogous to execution proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the applicants before Labour Court has also cited the following authorities for Punjab National Bank v. Kharbandra (sic) decided on 02.02.1962, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Suresh Chand and Another,

Recently the Supreme Court has discussed the nature and extent of Section 33C(2) in the following authorities:

In the authority of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Birendra Bhandari, employees of State Road Transport Corporation claimed enhanced wages on the basis of Vth Pay Commission. Labour Court held that recommendations of Vth Pay Commission were binding on Corporation, hence wages in accordance therewith could be directed to be paid u/s 33C(2). Supreme Court did not agree with the said view.

In the authority of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kankuben (Dead) by LRs. and Others etc. etc., it was held that claim of railway workers for over-time allowances was not tenable u/s 33C(2).

In the authority of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Brijpal Singh, it was held that right to money or benefit, which is sought to be recovered u/s 33C(2) must be an existing one, that is already adjudicated upon and must arise in course of and in relation to relationship between industrial workman and employer.

In the authority of Tara and Ors. v. Director Social Welfare 1999 LIC 228 (SC), it was held that if status and nature of employment of appellants as Anganwari workers/helpers was disputed, then application u/s 33C(2) was not tenable.

In the authority of State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Diubey 2001 (1) SCC 73, also Supreme Court held that u/s 33C(2) there must be pre-existing benefit or one flowing from existing right.

In the authority of P.K. Singh and Others Vs. Presiding Officer and Others, also it was held that where workman''s claim u/s 33C(2) cannot be disposed of unless his right to such claim is first adjudicated on a reference u/s 10(1), then application u/s 33C(2) is not maintainable.

In the authority of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) cited by learned Counsel for the alleged workmen, it was held that u/s 33C(2), there cannot be adjudication of dispute of entitlement or basis of claim of workman and the said provision is like execution.

The latest authority of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Section 33C(2) is reported in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner 2007 (2) ADJ 25 (SC ). The said case was decided on 17.01.2007. The said case was u/s 6-H of U.P.I.D. Act. In the said case, also it was held that highly disputed claim of the workman cannot be adjudicated u/s 6-H of U.P.I.D. Act or Section 33C(2), I.D. Act, which are in the nature of execution. In the said authority, reliance was placed upon Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vs. The Workmen and Another,

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that highly disputed claim of the applicants before the Labour Court was not tenable u/s 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, particularly when the very factum of employment of the applicants had been denied by the employer.

Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside.