IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR w.P. No. 4r453 [2004 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER : 1. Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Jairam Singh Thakur, aged about 6O years, S/o. Late Shri Than Singh Thakur, R/o. Miii Para, Dipra Ward, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4453 OF 2004 ' \\\ Petitioners Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Another Versus Respondent Jairam Singh Thakur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 24‘“ day of January, 201 1) 1. Despite service of notice, the respondent has chosen not to appear in the matter. 2. The question involved in this petition is asto whether the employee can seek a direction from the Labour Court in an application made under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act, 1947‘) for encashment of the surrender leave. 3. Case of the petitioners/Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is that the respondent/employee filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947 before the Labour Court that he has been retired from service without any prior notice and even the retrial dues have also not been paid. In the said case, the petitioners submitted their reply denying the submission made by the respondent/employee. The Labour Court passed the order in favour of the respondent/employee holding that the respondent is entitled to the retrial dues including the encashment of earned leave within a period of one month, Thereafter, the employee filed an application for execution of the order passed by the Labour Court. ln the said case, the petitioners moved an application for staying the recovery proceeding, the same has been rejected by the Labour Court, Thus, this petition. The issue involves herein came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in South Eastern Colfields Limited & Another v. The General Secretary, MP. Koyla Mazdo‘or Sabha & Othersl. This Court having considered all the aspects of the case, held that for invoking jurisdiction under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947, the entitlement of the workman should be certain. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to first ‘decide the workman’s entitlement and then direct to settle the amount in i W,P.No.3409 or 2000 (decided on 22nd November, 2005) an application filed under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947. The decision was taken to the Supreme Court in a petition for speciai leave to appeal Civil No.1 373/2006, which was dismissed on 17/04/2006. ln Amardeep Talkies v. Raipur Cinema Operators & Karamchari Sangh2, this Court held as under:— “9 ......The dispute requires adjudication which cannot be done in this application filed under section 33C (2) read with section (5) of the l.D.‘Act. Thus, the order passed by the Labour Court is beyond jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed. The members of the respondent Union are at liberty to take appropriate steps firstly for determination of their claim before taking recourse to provisions of section 33C(2) of the l.D. Act.“ in Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Smt. Basanta Bai & Anothera, the view taken by this Court in the earlier matters, was reaffirmed. Pursuant to the notice, on perusal, it is found that the petitioner has taken recourse to an application filed under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court drstlyt determined the amount and thereafter, directed to make payment, which is beyond jurisdiction of the Labour Court in exercise of its power under Section 33C (2) of the Act, 1947. Thus, the impugned order is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to take recourse to appropriate forum, if so advised. ln view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the/above extent. No order asto costs. 2 W.P.No.2820 of 2002 (decided on 23rd March, 2009) 3 2010(1) CGLJ 241