1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] Gwalior, Dated : 21.08.2018 Shri [ENTITY], learned Government Advocate for the petitioners/State. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondent.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23/12/2016 passed by the Labour Court on an application under [SECTION] of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act'); whereby holding the respondent workman for entitlement of wages from 1/12/2011 till May 2016, the Labour Court directed for payment of Rs.3,02,234/-.
Relevant facts briefly are that, while engaged on daily wages, w.e.f. 22/06/1981, respondent's services were dispensed with which led him to raise industrial dispute which was subject matter of case No.54/04/ID Act (Ref). That award of reinstatement without back THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] wages was passed on 20.06.2007. The award was not challenged and was allowed to attain finality. On 15/10/2007, the workman reported for duty but no joining letter was issued, which led him to file an application under [SECTION] of the ID Act for the wages from the date of reporting. It is pertinent to note that prior to the proceedings in vogue before Labour Court, the workman had filed one case under [SECTION] of the ID Act: 147/2011, wherein by order dated 20.12.2012, the employers were directed to pay Rs.1,88,968/-. It was for the wages from 1/12/2011 that subsequent case was filed. Present petitioners who were respondents in said proceeding raised objection that the workman was never prevented from joining but it was voluntary act in not joining. However, no cogent material was produced to establish that any letter of joining was issued. This led the Labour Court return the finding that the workman was not given the joining. Consequently, vide impugned order, held the workman entitle for wages.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] The impugned order is criticized on the ground that the Labour Court exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by first adjudicating the right and then directing for the payment. It is urged that since the controversy was in the domain of industrial dispute, the same could not have been adjudicated on an application under [SECTION] the ID Act. It is also contended that the workman of his own volition and therefrom was entitled for the wages for the said period.
The respondent on his turn supports the order. It is contended that it was within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to have computed the amount towards the wages denied to him. It is urged that since their was denial of giving joining, which led the court to determine the quantum.
Considered rival submissions. Perused the order and pleadings.
Admittedly, the workman was reinstated without back wages vide award dated 20.06.2007 which was not challenged by the employer. Thus incumbent it was THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] upon them to have reinstated the workman. No cogent material was brought to the notice of the Labour Court, nor in present writ petition to establish that on reporting for duty on 15/10/2007 or at time thereafter, the workman was given the letter of joining. The issue before Labour Court was not as to whether the workman was entitled for reinstatement, the issue was that having been reinstated by an award, the joining letter was not given nor was he given the joining.
[SECTION] of 1947 Act stipulates:-
"33C. Recovery of Money Due from an Employer.
(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. 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."
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] Dwelling upon the scope of [SECTION] of 1947 Act, it is held in "Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. [PRECEDENT]: (1995) 1 SCC 235":-
"12- It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under [SECTION] like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution."
In "[PRECEDENT]", it is observed :-
"10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed under [SECTION] only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under [SECTION] or on a reference under [SECTION] that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] held that a proceeding under [SECTION] is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further, this Court held that the right to the money which is sought to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer. This Court further held as follows: "It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under [SECTION] to arrogate to itself the functions of an industrial tribunal and entertain a claim which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under [SECTION] of the Act."
In "[ENTITY] and another v. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill and another (2008) 7 SCC 22", it is observed:
"12. The fact that proceedings under [SECTION] are in the nature of execution proceedings is in no doubt, and such proceedings presuppose some adjudication leading to the determination of a right, which has to be enforced. Concededly there has been no such adjudication in the present case. It will be seen that the reliance of the appellant workmen is exclusively on documentary evidence placed on record which consisted primarily of the punch time cards and the representations that had been filed from time to time before the respondents. It is also true that the claim raised by the appellants had been hotly disputed by the respondents. The question that arises in this situation is whether reliance only on the documentary evidence THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] was sufficient to prove the case. 13. We are of the opinion that the reference to Municipal Corporation's case (supra) is completely misplaced as in that matter, the fact that different categories of workers were doing identical kind of work was virtually admitted but different scales of pay were nevertheless being paid to them. It is also relevant that oral evidence had been adduced by the workmen to supplement the documentary evidence and it was in that situation that the Court felt that an application under [SECTION] was maintainable."
Evidently, from the principle of law laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra), [PRECEDENT] (supra) and [ENTITY] and another (supra), it is within the competence of the Labour Court on an application under [SECTION] of 1947 Act to compute the amount of money due to a workman from the employer, which includes the computation of benefit as per the policy of the State by applying the same in case of respondent workman who having been given the continuity of service, the Special Pay.
When facts of the present case are tested on the anvil of these principles that having been directed to be reinstated with continuity of past services, the joining THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-3058-2017 DY. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ANOTHER Versus [ENTITY] was not given, this Court is of the considered opinion that it was within the competence of the Labour Court to have computed the wages which the workman was entitled.
Consequently, petition fails and dismissed. No costs.
([ENTITY]) Judge Aman Date: 2018.08.24 17:41:58 -07'00'