1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4052 OF 2006 Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Ramesh Chhotelal Bania. ...Respondent. .... Mr. A.S. Rao for the Petitioners. Mr. J.S. D'silva for the Respondent. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. March 31, 2008. P.C.: Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioners have impugned in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the legality of the order passed by the Labour Court at Thane on 15th October 2005 on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 2 1947. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that the Respondent was employed as an X-ray Technician. The Respondent instituted an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 3rd April 2000 contending that he has been appointed as an X-ray Technician since 22nd January 1979. The Respondent stated that he is handling and can handle “almost all Electro Medico Instruments”. According to the Respondent, he had saved the Municipal Corporation of the salary of three extra employees by doing the work of an Electro Cardiogram Technician, Ultra Sonography Technician and Electro Medico Technician for which he was not paid any extra allowance. 4. In the application under Section 33-C(2), the Respondent inter alia claimed the following monetary benefits: (i) An amount of Rs.20,000/- from 19th May 1979 for the first additional charge and thereafter; (ii) An amount of Rs.18,000/- from 12th September 1988 for the second additional charge and thereafter; (iii) An amount of 3 Rs.9,000/- from 3rd August 1996 for the third additional charge and thereafter; (iv) An amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of two yearly increments; (v) An amount of Rs.5,000/- as a special increment for rendering 12 years' of service without promotion; (vi) An amount of Rs.9,000/- on the ground that no promotion had been given for rendering over 21 years' of service; (vii) A refund of Rs.100/- deducted in excess from the Festival Advance; (viii) A refund of Group LIC amount of Rs.600/- alleged to be deducted forcibly during the period of deputation; (ix) An amount of Rs.1500/- on the ground that no TA/DA was given during the time of deputation; (x) An amount of Rs.10,000/- as Vehicle/Petrol allowance; (xi) An amount of Rs.8,000/- for surrender leave payment; and (xii) An amount of Rs.6,000/- for washing allowance. 5. The case of the Petitioners was that the Respondent was employed as X-ray Technician and was paid emoluments commensurate with and applicable to his post in accordance with the existing award. The Municipal Corporation contended that there was no differentiation between the posts of X-ray Technician, ECG 4 Technician, USG Technician and EMI Technician as alleged. The contention of the Petitioners was that the plea of the Respondent required adjudication and therefore, fell outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court allowed the application and directed the Petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.92,200/- to the Respondent. 6. On behalf of the Petitioners, it has been submitted that ex- facie a perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court would show that the claims of the Respondent were such as would merit an adjudication. This, it was urged, was beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 33-C(2). 7. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the Respondent that the material which was produced before the Labour Court shows that the Respondent had worked in different capacities and that consequently, there was no error on the part of the Labour Court in allowing his claims. 5 8. In assessing the rival contentions, it is at the outset necessary to note that it was in April 2000 that the Respondent had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) claiming various monetary benefits with effect from May 1979. The Respondent claimed that for every additional charge that he held, he should be allowed certain benefits. In addition, the Respondent claimed yearly increments, a special increment and monetary benefits on the ground that he has not been promoted for two decades. Other claims have also been made which are noted above. There is merit in the submission which was urged on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the nature of the claims was such as would warrant an adjudication and could not have been entertained in an application under Section 33-C(2). Paragraph 33 of the judgment of the Labour Court would show that reliance was sought to be placed on a letter written on 25th March 1998 by the Chief Medical Officer, Shastri Nagar General Hospital to the Assistant Commissioner recommending the case of the Respondent for promotion or for an additional increment on the ground that the Respondent was performing certain additional work. A recommendation made by the Chief Medical Officer can by no stretch 6 of imagination be regarded as a decision by the Municipal Corporation appointing the Respondent to a particular post, or for that matter, to a higher post. The Labour Court was manifestly in error in allowing the said claims in proceedings under Section 33-C(2). During the course of his cross-examination, the Superintendent in the General Administration Department who deposed on behalf of the Corporation also stated that the letter of the Chief Medical Officer was only a recommendation for additional payment. Ignoring this material statement, the Labour Court allowed the application holding that the Respondent had accepted the additional charge as directed by a superior officer. In my view, the entire approach of the Labour Court suffers from manifest perversity and transgresses the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 33-C(2). Section 33-C(2) is in the nature of a summary remedy where a computation of the amounts which are due and payable is required to be made. In the present case, the claim of the Respondent required to be adjudicated and could, therefore, not be entertained under Section 33-C(2). 9. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petition 7 would have to be allowed. The judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 15th October 2005 in Application (IDA) 157 of 2000 is quashed and set aside and the application shall accordingly stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the Respondent from seeking an adjudication of such claims that he has, in accordance with law. 10. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There shall be no order as to costs. ....