HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1055 of 2007 Date: November 11, 2010 Between: M/s. Sunitha Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. … Petitioner And 1. The Hon’ble Labour Court-I, represented by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1055 of 2007 ORDER: The second respondent herein filed a petition under Section 33- C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, Act of 1947), before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in M.P. No.30 of 2003. By order dated 27.11.2006, the Labour Court held that the second respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent in the said M.P. is before this Court. 2. By order dated 25.01.2007, this Court granted interim suspension of the order under challenge. While making the said order absolute on 12.7.2007, this Court directed the petitioner company to deposit half the amount awarded by the Labour Court, permitting the second respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing security. 3. According to the second respondent, he was appointed by the management of M/s. Satguru Textiles and was transferred to the petitioner company from the said unit. He further claimed that he was terminated from service orally with effect from 01.01.2003 without notice. He filed the subject petition under Section 33-C (2) claiming a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards notice pay, a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards un- availed leave salary, a sum of Rs.72,000/- towards bonus and a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards retrenchment compensation, in all Rs.1,20,000/-. The case of the petitioner company, on the other hand, is that the second respondent was not its employee at any point of time. 4. In spite of the petitioner company denying the employer- employee relationship between itself and the second respondent, the Labour Court held that the second respondent was appointed as a Salesman by the petitioner company. Disallowing the claims in respect of the un-availed leave salary and bonus, the Labour court accepted the second respondent’s claims for notice pay and retrenchment compensation and directed payment of Rs.40,000/-. 5. Sri Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner company, contended that there was not an iota of proof to show that the second respondent was ever an employee of the petitioner company. He pointed out that the original letter of appointment dated 17.01.1989 (Ex.W.11) produced by the second respondent only evidenced his appointment by Satguru Textiles and not by the petitioner company. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel contended that the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 as the very entitlement of the petitioner to claim such reliefs was in dispute. He placed reliance on case law in this regard. 6. Refuting the said contention, Sri C. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, stated that the management of Satguru Textiles and the petitioner company was one and the same and relied on the photographic evidence adduced before the Labour Court to support his contention, as the Director of the petitioner company attended the second respondent’s wedding. 7. In so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the petitioner company, being a separate legal entity, cannot be mulcted with the liabilities or employees of Satguru Textiles, notwithstanding the fact that the Director of the petitioner company may have participated in the management of the said unit. That being so, the very relationship of the second respondent with the petitioner company was open to doubt. In the absence of evidence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner company and the second respondent, the question of his retrenchment from service would not arise. Without first deciding this issue and thereafter, looking into the question as to whether the retrenchment, if any, was illegal, the Labour Court ought not to have proceeded directly to the payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation. 8. The clear language of Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 indicates that it can be pressed into service by a workman who is entitled to receive from the employer any money or benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and the only question to be decided is as to the amount. The emphasis in the above provision is upon the entitlement of the workman to receive the money or the benefit as a condition precedent, the only issue being left for decision being the computation thereof. (Punjab Beverages Pvt. Limited vs. Suresh Chand[1], State of U.P. vs. Brijpal Singh[2] and D. Krishnan Vs. Spl. Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill[3]). In the present case, the very entitlement was in dispute, as the relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner company and the second respondent was denied. Further, the next issue as to whether the second respondent, if found to be an employee of the petitioner company, was subjected to illegal retrenchment also had to be duly established by material evidence. Unless the same was decided, the entitlement of the second respondent to claim notice pay and retrenchment compensation would not arise. 9. The decisions relied upon by Sri C. Sridhar, learned counsel, are of no avail to him in the facts of the present case. In M. Krishnaswamy v. Assam Tea Depot[4], a Division Bench of this Court held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 would not be barred by any of the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 and that it would be open to an employee governed by the provisions of the said Act to recover the money or other benefit due to him under the provisions of the said Act, by filing a petition under Section 33C (2) of the Act of 1947. This ratio does not deviate from the essential principle underlying the provision that the entitlement must be established before initiation of proceedings under Section 33-C (2). 10. In Maridegam Radhakrishna Reddy v. Sri Bharathi Velu Bus Service and another[5], a Full Bench of this Court held that once there was no cessation of the relationship of employer-employee, the entitlement of the employee to claim the wages for the period that he remained out of service without being suspended would not be watered down merely because of the employer’s denial of the right of the employee to claim such wages. The denial therefore would not oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. The facts of the case on hand being completely different, the judgment of the Full Bench does not assist the petitioner. 11. In M/s. Anand Oil Industries v. Labour Court, Hyderabad and others[6], a Full Bench of this Court held that the minimum bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, is a right vested in an employee and therefore a claim in this regard could be made under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. This judgment has no application on facts to the present case. 12. In that view of the matter and in the light of the settled legal position, the second respondent could not have maintained a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 for claiming notice pay and retrenchment compensation without first establishing his entitlement thereto by way of an independent adjudication. The action of the Labour Court in entertaining such a petition and directing payment of amounts on these counts is clearly without jurisdiction. The order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in M.P. No.30 of 2003 is accordingly set aside. It shall be open to the petitioner company to initiate steps for recovery of the amount already paid to the second respondent. 13. The writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: November 11, 2010. BSB [1] (1978) 2 SCC 144 [2] AIR 2006 SC 3592 [3] AIR 2009 SC 395 [4] 1976 (1) APLJ 291 [5] AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 102 [6] AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 182