CWP No.8026 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.8026 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.11.2011 M/s. Bata India Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the State. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... K. Kannan, J.(Oral) The order in challenge, is a direction by the Labour Court for payment of certain sum of money that was purported to be the balance of dearness allowance payable by the management. The management took a plea, inter- alia, that the petitioner was not their workman and the case itself cannot be decided without the prior adjudication of his status as workman. It is an elementary issue of labour jurisprudence that proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is in the nature of execution and it is only the issue of the claim for amounts, there could be a reckoning of such liability and the proceedings cannot themselves render an CWP No.8026 of 1988 2 adjudication whether a particular person was a workman or not. They assume significance particularly in the context of defence taken and an attempt made before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a workman, but an independent contractor. The management was trying to prove its contention by reliance on several bills raised by the workman for the work done and the periodical cheques given by the management, which were credited to the bank account of the petitioner. The documents established that there were no payments of monthly wages and on the other hand, payments had been made for the work done. The documents were also summoned from the Provident Fund Commissioner that spelt out the status of the workman as an employee of a contractor. These narrations are only for the purpose of showing the respective contentions of the parties. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the workman that he had been previously an employee and the so-called change in the status in the year 1980 that he became a contractor, amounted to creation of an instrument of contract to get over the benefits that workman was entitled to. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the workman that the management was guilty of unfair labour practice and found that he was a workman to be entitled to the alleged balance of dearness allowance. To the query as to how the workman could maintain a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, when his own status was questioned, the learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Mittal argued that the maintainability was never put in issue and the management was not prepared to join the issue whether the petitioner was a workman or not. Having invited an adjudication, it cannot shy away from the CWP No.8026 of 1988 3 adjudication already entered by the Labour Court and finding the amount as payable. It is also brought out through records that two other persons had joined the fray along with the workman, but they later withdrew. The workman himself appears to have sought a reference to raise the dispute for determination of his status as a workman and for other benefits. There appears to be an independent case that awaits a decision of this Court through the independent adjudication. I will take up the issue relating to the status of the workman and find that the Labour Court could not have decided the disputed status of the workman in a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The order would be required to be set aside only on that short ground. I find, however, that the amount involved as payable to the workman through the order of the Labour Court was only Rs.30368.83. This Court has permitted the workman to be paid the amount subject to furnishing security. This order has been passed on 16.9.1988 and having regard to the peculiar circumstances, I will allow the amount to be retained by the workman and if there is any security, which is given for the realization of the amount, the same shall stand discharged. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. ( K. Kannan ) Judge 30.11.2011 sk.