Civil Appeal No 2640L of 1980 From the Judgment and order dated 1421978 of the Central Govt
Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court New Delhi in LCA Nos
389 391 393 395 406 of 1978
Mrs Urmila Kapur Advocate for the Appellants
VC Mahajan Miss A Subhashini RP Srivastava and CV Subba Rao for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMlAH J
This appeal by special leave is filed by 16 workmen of the Small Arms Factory Kanpur against the common order dated 14th February 1979 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Alipur Road Delhi in applica 473 tions bearing LCA Nos 389 391 to 393 and 395 to 406 of 1978 filed under section 33 C2 of the hereinafter referred to as the Act  rejecting their claims
The appellants filed the applications under section 33 C2 of the Act for computation of the wages payable to them for certain periods as detailed in the respective petitions
Their case was that even though they had been engaged as C  Grade Fitters they were entitled to the salary and allowances payable to B  Grade Fitters since they were doing the same duties as B  Grade Fitters
The Management contested the applications filed by the appellants stating that they were not maintainable since the principal question involved in all the applications related to the re classification of the workmen concerned and that such a relief could not be claimed under section 33 C2 of the Act
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court upheld the objection of the Management and rejected the applications by its common order dated 14th February 1979
Aggrieved by the said common order the appellants filed this appeal by special leave
It is not disputed that the appellants had been employed as C Grade Fitters and in order to get the salary and allowances payable to B  Grade Fitters they had to be promoted to the cadre of B  Grade Fitters on their passing certain trade tests
Admittedly the appellants had not been so promoted
But their case before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court was that since they were doing the same duties which are performed by a B  Grade Fitter they were entitled to claim the wages payable to B  Grade Fitters under section 33 C2 of the Act
Section 33 C2 of the Act reads thus 33 C2
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
 474 The above provision came up for consideration before this Court A in the Central Bank of India Ltd vs PS Rajagopalan etc
  At pages 150 151 of the said Report this Court observed thus The Legislative history to which we have just referred clearly indicates that having provided broadly for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes on the basis of collective bargaining the legislature recognised that individual workmen should be given a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights and so inserted section 33 A in the Act in 1950 and added section 33 C in 1956
These two provisions illustrate the cases in which individual workmen can enforce their rights without having to take recourse to section 101 of the Act or without having to depend upon their Union to espouse their cause
Therefore in construing section 33 C we have to bear in mind two relevant considerations
The construction should not be so broad as to bring within the scope of section 33 C cases which would fall under section 101
Where industrial disputes arise between employees acting collectively and their employers they must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Act as for instance by reference under section 101
These disputes cannot be brought within the purview of section 33 C Similarly having regard to the fact that the policy of the Legislature in enacting section 33 C is to provide a speedy remedy to the individual workmen to enforce or execute their existing rights it would not be reasonable to exclude from the scope of this section cases of existing rights which are sought to be implemented by individual workmen
In other words though in determining the scope of section 33 C we must take care not to exclude cases which legitimately fall within its purview we must also bear in mind that cases which fall under section 101 of the Act for instance cannot be brought within the scope of section 33 C It is obvious from the facts narrated above which are not in dispute that by merely doing the same kind of work which is done by a B  Grade Fitter a workman appointed as a C  Grade Fitter will not be entitled to claim the wages of a B  Grade Fitter unless he is duly promoted after getting through the prescribed trade tests Such a workman cannot complain that he is not being paid the salary and allowances due to a B  Grade Fitter since he does not possess an 475 existing right to claim it
If on an adjudication made on the said question on a reference made under section 101 of the Act it is held that he should be deemed to be a member of the cadre of B  Grade Fitters then only he would be able to claim the salary and allowances payable to B  Grade Fitters
The case before us is analogous to the claim made by a Junior Clerk who can become a Senior Clerk only on promotion to the salary attached to the post of Senior Clerk on the ground that both the Junior Clerk and the Senior Clerk are engaged in clerical work
The learned counsel for the appellants however relied upon two other decisions of this Court State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs Khandelwal R L and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs Gopal Sahal Pareek which were decided on the same day
On going through those two decisions we feel that they are of no assistance to the appellants
In the said cases this Court clearly laid down that a workman could not put forward a claim in an application filed under section 33 C2 of the Act in respect of a relief which was not based on an existing right and which could be appropriately the subject matter of an industrial dispute requiring a reference under section 10 of the Act
The decision of this Court in RB Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co Ltd vs Labour Court Nagpur  Ors  is clearly distinguishable from the present case
In the said case the only dispute was whether workmen were not entitled to lay off compensation
The Management in that case contended that the business had been closed and the workmen were not entitled lay off compensation
This Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case it was clear that the business of the company was continuing and that the Labour Court s jurisdiction could not be ousted by a mere plea denying the workmen s claim to the computation of benefit in terms of money
It was also held that the Labour Court in the circumstances had to go into the matter and come to a decision as to whether there was really a closure or a lay off
If in the present case the claim of the appellants was that they had been actually promoted to B  Grade Fitters cadre and that the Management had denied that there was such promotion the Labour Court would have been under an obligation to determine whether there was such a promotion or not
But the case of the workmen before us is that they should be classified as B  Grade Fitters even though they had been appointed as C  Grade Fitters merely because they had been performing the duties which were similar to the duties of B  Grade Fitters
476 The decision of the Gujarat High Court rendered by Thakkar CJ as he then was in VM Vankar Macwana vs Indian Farmers Fertiliser is again of no assistance to the appellants
In that case there was a settlement arrived at between the Management and the workmen and under the said settlement persons working as Conveyor Attendants Bag Stitchers Bag Fillers and Pointsmen were entitled to the pay scale of Rs225 9 333
The complaint of the workman concerned was that even though he was performing the duties of persons in the above category he was being paid as per the pay scale of workmen in a lower category ie the pay scale of Rs210 8 314
In that case the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Labour Court was required to decide whether the workman concerned was doing the work of an employee who was in the category which carried a higher pay scale or was doing the work of an employee in a category which carried a lower pay scale for the purpose of granting relief to the workman
The question of promotion from a lower post to a higher post or of the passing of a trade test for the n purpose of securing such promotion was not involved in that case
In any view of the matter we feel that there is no ground to set aside the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court against which this appeal is filed
The appeal fails and it is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
It is open to the workmen if they are so advised to seek a reference of the question whether they are entitled to be treated as B  Grade Fitters under section 10 of the Act and if such a reference is sought we hope that the appropriate Government would decide expeditiously the question whether a reference should be made accordingly or not
If a reference is made the Tribunal or the Court to which the reference is made shall dispose of the case as early as possible
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent No I was a journalist supplying news to the petitioner s newspaper on payment of a fixed monthly honorarium
Contrary to the petitioner s instructions the respondent No I left India and thereupon the petitioner terminated the arrangement
Upon his return to India the respondent No I requested the petitioner to reconsider its decision but the petitioner declined to do so
The respondent No I applied to the State Government under section 17 Of tile Working Journalists Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1955 claiming a large sum of money from the petitioner
The State Government nominated respondent NO 2 as the authority under section 17 of the Act and referred the claim to him
The petitioner disputed the whole claim and contended that the respondent NO 2 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the disputed claim Held that the authority specified under section 17 of the Act had no jurisdiction to determine the amount due as the section merely provided for a procedure to recover an amount from the employer which had previously been determined by a competent authority or court
If the legislature had intended that the enquiry under section 17 should include the examination of the merits of the claim and a decision thereon it would have made appropriate provisions conferring upon the State Government or the specified authority the relevant powers essential for the purpose of effectively holding such an enquiry but no such powers had been conferred