Case: Namor Ali Choudhury And Others Vs. Central Inland Water Sport Corporation Ltd. And Another

2. The appellant, workmen of the respondent-company filed an application under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, in the Labour Court asking it to compute their wages due from the respondent on the basis of certain settlements said to have been arrived at between them and the management. The Labour Court allowed their application in part and held that each of the workman was entitled to get Rs. 848 from the respondent-company at Rs. 20 per month from December, 1969 to March, 1972 and at Rs. 12 from March, 1970 to March, 1972. The claim of the workmen for Rs. 13 per month from February, 1971 to March, 1972 was rejected by the Labour Court. The management challenged the order of the Labour Court in Civil Rule No. 778 of 1972 by a writ application. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the order of the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.

Reasoning:
Broadly speaking, there will be the disputes which will be referable to the question as to the amount of money due. If the right to get the money on the basis of the settlement or the award is not established no amount of money will be due. If it is established, then it has to be found out, albeit, it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due For finding it out, it is not necessary that there should be a dispute as to the amount of money due also. The fourth kind of dispute which we have indicated obviously and literally will be covered by the phrase "amount of money due". A dispute as to all such questions or any of them would attract the provisions of S.33C(2) of the Act and make the remedy available to the workmen concerned5. It is not necessary to elaborately discuss the various authorities of this Court on the point. To our mind the view we have expressed above is plainly and squarely covered by the principles of law enunciated by this Court in several decisionsA detailed discussion is not necessary to reject it. The satisfaction of the appropriate Government which is spoken of in sub-section is their prima facie satisfaction when a claim is made by any workman before the Government for issuance of a certificate by the collector for realisation of the amount due. If the appropriate Government finds that the amount claimed by the workman is due and there is no such dispute which need any adjudication by the Labour Court in accordance with sub-s. (2) or the dispute raised is not bona fide, then the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount due to the collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land revenue. The decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank Ltd., v. K. L. Kharbanda, (1962) 2 Supp. S.C.R. 977, does not help the respondent at all in support of the interpretation sought to be put by it to sub-s. (1) of S. 33CSuch an argument is too obviously wrong to be accepted.