C.W.P. No.593 of 1984 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.593 of 1984 Date of Decision: 27.11.2009 State of Haryana through Deputy Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department. .....Petitioner Versus Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act granting to the workmen their respective claims for gratuity. Their contention was that they had all retired on various dates between 1963 to 1974 and they were entitled to gratuity as per the resolution passed on 28.09.1962. The contention on behalf of the management was that this resolution had been rescinded subsequently on 25.05.1973 with retrospective effect and the basis on which the petitions were making claim for gratuity C.W.P. No.593 of 1984 -2- namely resolution dated 28.09.1962 was no longer in force. The Labour Court found that such a retrospective rescission was not possible and held that all the workmen were entitled to claim gratuity as sought for by them. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State contends that a claim petition cannot be entertained for adjudication on a dispute whether the resolution dated 28.09.1962 was validly rescinded or not. The petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act itself is in the nature of execution of rights which have already fructified and it would be impermissible for the Labour Court to decide on the validity of the resolution dated 25.05.1973 rescinding the resolution made on 28.09.1962. It was the further contention of learned counsel, Sh. Nalwa that Section 33-C(2) is available only in respect of matters which are specified for adjudication before the Labour Court by reference to Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Schedule III lists out six items for consideration and the sixth item under 2nd Schedule refers to “all matters other than those specified in the third schedule.” The 3rd Schedule includes claims for gratuity also and referred to in Entry 5. By necessary implication, the claim for gratuity cannot be considered in a claim petition under Section 33-C(2). The contention, therefore, was that the Labour Court has no competence to entertain a claim of the workman for gratuity. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the workman points out C.W.P. No.593 of 1984 -3- that out of 16 workmen on whose behalf the claim petitions had been filed, 9 have already died and even the amounts, which have been directed to be paid which ranged between Rs.516 to Rs.8910 have been recovered by the workmen during the pendency of the proceedings. Although I accept the contention of Sh. Nalwa relating to the lack of jurisdiction of the Labour Court in relation to gratuity in an application under Section 33-C(2), I do not think it necessary to reverse the ultimate findings, since the benefit of the order has already been claimed and it will be inequitable to require the workmen to refund the money which they have recovered. Many of the workmen are reported to have died and the amounts involved are in a few thousand only. I, therefore, make no directions for refunding the benefit which the respective workmen had obtained through the orders. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 26, 2009 Pankaj*