KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5765 OF 2010 Prabhakar B. Mali ...Petitioner vs. Pune Zilla Sahakari Krishi Va Gramin Vikas Bank and others ...Respondents Mr. Sameer M. Paranjape for the petitioner. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: MARCH 03, 2011. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5765 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge while allowing the petition filed by the respondent held that the applicants i.e. present appellant and others are free to file fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised. 2. The Respondent is a co-operative society. The workmen filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Pune, under Section 33 C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25th September, 2009 claiming benefits under the settlement dated 27th October, 1996 for the period from 1st December, 1998. The applicants included the names of employees who retired KPP -2- from the Apex Bank. The application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has no jurisdiction to decide such a claim especially when there is a dispute as to whether some of the applicants were workmen of the society as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In spite of the objection, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour came to the conclusion that the applicants before it were entitled to dearness allowance and leave travel concession etc. as per the settlement dated 27th October, 1996. It is required to be noted that the proceedings of recovery under Section 33-C is in the nature of execution proceedings and unless workmen establishes their right, the proceedings straightaway cannot be entertained. It is also required to be noted that such an application is required to be filed within one year from the date on which the money is payable. In the instant case, there is delay of about 15 years in preferring an application under Section 33 C (1 ) of the I.D. Act. The learned Judge has observed as under in para 13. “13. Apart from this, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has not considered whether an application under Section 33 C (1) of the I.D. Act would be maintainable when the employer disputes the status of the applicants inasmuch as the employer contends that the applicants were not workmen as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. This issue has not been considered at all by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.” KPP -3- 3. The learned single Judge has also found that under Section 33 C (1) of the I.D. Act, the authority cannot decide whether the applicant is a workman or not for which a reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. and others vs. Rajagopalan(P.S.) & Ors.1 . In our view, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge has committed any error of law which requires interference in this appeal. The learned Judge has also observed that the concerned applicants were free to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. No interference is, therefore, called for. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed summarily. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J. 1 1963 II LLJ 89