C.W.P. No. 1032 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1032 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: 10.5.2011 Mistry Hardev Singh Dairy Wala ..PETITIONER VS. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana & Anr. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. *** JUDGMENT: The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 20.8.1991 whereby he has been held liable to pay the salary and wages on account of leave with wages to respondent No.2-workman totalling to Rs.3675/- within three months of the order. The facts of the case are that workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming a sum of Rs.3675/- from the petitioner on the ground that he was employed by him on his dairy, but was not paid wages on account of earned leave from 1.11.1986 to 7.9.1987. The claim of the workman was resisted by the petitioner, according to whom respondent was neither the workman nor he is engaged in any dairy business, thereby falling within the ambit of “industry”. The learned Tribunal framed the issues and to substantiate the same both the parties led their respective evidence. After the contest, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is running a dairy farm which comes within the definition of “Industry” as given in Section 2(J) of the Act ibid and that the respondent was his workman, who was not paid wages on account of leave C.W.P. No. 1032 of 1992 2 amounting to Rs.3675/- and, as said above, directed the petitioner to pay the same to the workman within three months. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the workman filed the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act straightway while the same are in the nature of execution proceedings and firstly there must be some award, for execution of which the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is maintainable. Section 33-C(2) reads as under:- “33C. Recovery of money due from an employer - (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer, any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if the question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government.” From the above, it is clear that any benefit, which a workman is entitled to receive from the employer, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government. In the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. Shyamal Kumar Lodh 2010 AIR SCW 4495, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “... The workman had, though, chosen to file application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act but that in our opinion shall not denude jurisdiction to the Labour Court, if it otherwise possesses jurisdiction. Incorrect label of the application and mentioning wrong C.W.P. No. 1032 of 1992 3 provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the Court of its jurisdiction. Relief sought for, if falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, it cannot be thrown out on the ground of its erroneous label or wrong mentioning of provision. In the present case the Labour Court, Dibrugarh satisfies all the requirements to decide the dispute raised by the employee before it.” In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. It is evident from the records that though the petitioner denied of having employed the respondent and that he is not running any dairy, but during the enquiry conducted by the Labour Court, respondent examined Gajjan Singh Sarpanch and Karnail Singh Panch, who corroborated the version of the workman and specifically stated that the workman was employed by the petitioner at his dairy and the latter refused to make the payment of the dues to the former. Such a findings have been returned after conducting a due enquiry in the matter by the Labour Court. While exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied that on the basis of evidence on record, the Labour Court has arrived at certain findings of fact, which are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. So far as question of maintainability of application under Section 33-C(2) is concerned, the same has been answered against the petitioner in view of the law laid down in the case of Vijaya Bank's case (supra). Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 10,2011 Jiten