Case: Kays Construction Co. (P) Ltd Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

be taken before the Labour Court under the second sub-section to determine the money equivalent of the "benefit" to which the workmen were entitled before the certificate could issue. In other words, Broome, J. was of opinion that the application of the first sub-section of S. 6-H was premature and thus erroneous.7. Against this decision an appeal was filed under the Letters Patent of the High Court and by the order, now under appeal, the judgment of Broome, J. was reversed. The Division Bench held that the words of the second sub-section "any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money" indicated benefits like free quarters or free electricity and not something which a workman earned through his labour. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in S. S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., 1958 SCR 442 : (AIR 1958 SC 12 ), where Bhagwati, J. has pointed out that if any benefit awarded by the Tribunal was not expressed in terms of money it was necessary to have it computed in terms of money before the appropriate Government could be asked to help in the recovery under S. 20 (2) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal), Act, 1950. In the opinion of the Division Bench this decision supported their conclusion that the computation in terms of money of a benefit was something different from mere arithmetical calculation of the amount of back wages. The Divisional Bench distinguished Kasturi and Sons (P) Ltd. v. N. Salivatesaran, AIR 1958 SC 507 , on the ground that S. 17 of the Working Journalists (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 referred expressly to money due by way of compensation, gratuity and wages. The case in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda, (1962) 1 Lab LJ 234 : (AIR 1963 SC 487 ), where it was held that monetary advantage or profit was not necessarily outside the word benefit as used in S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was also distinguished. In view of these cases the Division Bench did not follow the two rulings of the High Court cited earlier and another reported in Shri Amrasinghji Mills Ltd. v. M. N. Nagrashna, (1961) 1 Lab LJ 581 (Bom).8. It is contended before us that the judgment of the Divisional Bench is erroneous in its interpretation of S. 6-H (1) and (2). The question thus is how are the two sub-sections to be read? This section is analogous to S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and S. 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. It is significant that in all the three statutes the cognate section is divided into two parts and the first part deals with recovery of money due to a workman under an award and the seond deals with a benefit computable in terms of money. Under the first sub-section the State Government (or its delegate) if satisfied that any money is due, is enabled to issue a certificate to the collector who then proceeds to recover the amount as an arrear of land revenue. The second part then speaks of a benefit computable in terms of money which benefit after it is so computed by a Tribunal is again recoverable in the same way as money due under the first part. This scheme runs through Section 6-H, sub-ss. (1) and (2).9. That there is some difference between the two sub-sections is obvious enough. It arises from the fact that the benefit contemplated in the second sub-section is not "money due" but some advantage or perquisite which can be reckoned in terms of money. The Divisional Bench has given apt examples of benefits which are computable in terms of money, but till so computed are not "money due". For instance, loss of the benefit of free quarters is not loss of "money due" though such loss can be reckoned in terms of money by inquiry and equation. The contrast between "money due" on the one hand and a "benefit" which is not "money due" but which can become so after the money equivalent is determined on the other, marks out the areas of the operation of the two sub-sections. If the word "benefit" were taken to cover a case of mere arithmetical calculation of wages, the first sub-section would hardly have any play. Every case of calculation, however, simple, would have to go first before a Tribunal. In our judgment, a case such as the present, where the money due is back wages for the period of unemployment is covered by the first sub-section and not the second. No doubt some calculation enters the determination of the amount for which the certificate will eventually issue but this calculation is not of the type mentioned in the second sub-section and cannot be made to fit in the elaborate phrase "benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money". The contrast in the two sub-section and the necessity of reckoning the benefit in terms of money before the benefit becomes "money due" under the second sub-section shows that mere arithmetical calculations of the amount due are not required to be dealt with under the elaborate procedure of the second sub-section. The appellant no doubt conjured up a number of obstructions in the way of this simple calculation. These objections dealt with the "amount due" and they are being investigated because State Government must first satisfy itself that the amount claimed is in fact due. But the antithesis between "money due" and a "benefit which must be computed in terms of money" still remains; for the inquiry being made is not of the kind contemplated by the second sub-section but is one for the satisfaction of the State Government under the first sub-section. It is verification of the claim to money within the first sub-section and not determination in terms of money of the value of a benefit. The judgment of the Division Bench was thus right.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]This section is analogous to S. 33C ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and S. 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. It is significant that in all the three statutes the cognate section is divided into two parts and the first part deals with recovery of money due to a workman under an award and the seond deals with a benefit computable in terms of money. Under the first sub-section the State Government (or its delegate) if satisfied that any money is due, is enabled to issue a certificate to the collector who then proceeds to recover the amount as an arrear of land revenue. The second part then speaks of a benefit computable in terms of money which benefit after it is so computed by a Tribunal is again recoverable in the same way as money due under the first part. This scheme runs through Section 6-H, sub-ss. (1) and (2).That there is some difference between the two sub-sections is obvious enough. It arises from the fact that the benefit contemplated in the second sub-section is not "money due" but some advantage or perquisite which can be reckoned in terms of money. The Divisional Bench has given apt examples of benefits which are computable in terms of money, but till so computed are not "money due". For instance, loss of the benefit of free quarters is not loss of "money due" though such loss can be reckoned in terms of money by inquiry and equation. The contrast between "money due" on the one hand and a "benefit" which is not "money due" but which can become so after the money equivalent is determined on the other, marks out the areas of the operation of the two sub-sections. If the word "benefit" were taken to cover a case of mere arithmetical calculation of wages, the first sub-section would hardly have any play. Every case of calculation, however, simple, would have to go first before a Tribunal. In our judgment, a case such as the present, where the money due is back wages for the period of unemployment is covered by the first sub-section and not the second. No doubt some calculation enters the determination of the amount for which the certificate will eventually issue but this calculation is not of the type mentioned in the second sub-section and cannot be made to fit in the elaborate phrase "benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money". The contrast in the two sub-section and the necessity of reckoning the benefit in terms of money before the benefit becomes "money due" under the second sub-section shows that mere arithmetical calculations of the amount due are not required to be dealt with under the elaborate procedure of the second sub-section. The appellant no doubt conjured up a number of obstructions in the way of this simple calculation. These objections dealt with the "amount due" and they are being investigated because State Government must first satisfy itself that the amount claimed is in fact due. But the antithesis between "money due" and a "benefit which must be computed in terms of money" still remains; for the inquiry being made is not of the kind contemplated by the second sub-section but is one for the satisfaction of the State Government under the first sub-section. It is verification of the claim to money within the first sub-section and not determination in terms of money of the value of a benefit. The judgment of the Division Bench was thus right.