Case: Treogi Nath Vs. The Indian Iron &amp; Steel Co. Ltd

1. On an industrial dispute referred to it, the Fifth Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal gave an award, which was published on September l9, 1955; under which 41 persons, including the 30 appellants who had been dismissed from service by the two Companies, which are respondents 1 and a in this appeal, were directed to be reinstated in service. Under the award, it was held that these appellants were entitled to half their salary from October 2, 1953 to the date of their actual resumption of duty. According to the appellants, they were not allowed to resume duty by the Companies, even though they offered to do so. The Companies did not admit that there was any such offer and went up in appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and obtained an order of stay of implementation of the award from it. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, whereafter the Companies came in further appeal to this Court, and this Court also granted stay of the implementation of the award during the pendency of that appeal. After the final dismissal of the appeal by this Court, the appellants were allowed to resume their duty. Thereafter, a dispute arose as to the amount to which the appellants were entitled under the award until the date of resumption of duty by them. The appellants, by separate applications, applied to the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, for determination of the amounts due to them under Sec.33-C (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Companies challenged the jurisdiction of the Second Labour Court on the ground that that Court had not been specified for the purpose of determining the amount at which the benefits claimed by the workmen is to be computed in terms of money under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. This preliminary objection was accepted by the Second Labour Court which held that it had no jurisdiction to make any order on the applications presented by the appellants. The appellants then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the correctness of the view taken by the Second Labour Court. A learned single Judge of that Court came to the decision that the Second Labour Court had jurisdiction to take proceedings on the applications of the appellant under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, and, consequently, issued a writ of certiorari vacating the order made by the Second Labour Court and a writ of mandamus directing the Second, Labour Court to decide on merits applications presented on behalf of the appellants. The Companies then went before a Division Bench by a Letters Patent Appeal and, in that appeal, the decision of the learned single Judge was set aside and that of the Second Labour Court was restored. The appellants have now come up to this Court by special leave against this order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by which it has been held that the Second Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with these applications of the appellants.

Court's reasoning:
The language of sub-section (2) of S. 33-C is perfectly clear in laying down that the computation in terms of money of the benefit claimed by a workman is to be made by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriatewas conceded by counsel for both parties that there was no general or specific order mentioning the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, as the Court specified for purposes of making the determination under Section 33-Care unable to accept this interpretation. The language of S. 33-C (2) itself makes it clear that the appropriate Government has to specify the Labour Court which is to discharge the functions under this sub-section. The use of the expression "specified in this behalf " is significant. The words "in this behalf" must be given their full import and effect.They clearly indicate that there must be a specification by the appropriate Government that a particular Court is to discharge the function under S. 33-C (2) and, thereupon, it is that Court alone which will have jurisdiction to proceed under that provision. The mere fact that a Labour Court has been constituted under S. 7 (1) of the Act for the purpose of adjudication of industrial disputes as well as for performing other functions that may be assigned to it under the Act does not mean that that Court is automatically specified as the Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under S. 33-C (2) of the Act. S. 33-C (2) confers jurisdiction only on those Labour Courts which are specified in this behalf, i. e., such Labour Courts which are specifically designated by the State Government for the purpose of computing the money value of the benefit claimed by a workman.The Second Labour Court, West Bengal, was, in fact, never specified by any order of the State Government as one of those Labour Courts which is to exercise the powers or discharge the functions under S. 33-Cdo not think that this comparison is correct or justified. Though Civil Courts are constituted under S. 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, it has to be remembered that the power of those Courts to take cognizance of civil suits and decide them is conferred by theCode of Civil Procedure. It is not by virtue of their constitution under S. 13 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act that the Courts take cognizance of civil suits and decide them.Section 33-C (2), in the matter of applications made by individual workmen, is, therefore, not comparable with S. 13 (2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, but, in fact, lays down the requirement which must be satisfied before the Labour Court can take cognizance of the matter raised before it by the applications of the workmen. Section 33-C (2) would, thus, servo the purpose in the case of Labour Courts which is served by the provisions of theCode of Civil Procedure relating to cognizance in respect of Civil Courts. S. 33-C (2), by its language, makes it clear that the jurisdiction under that provision is to be exercised only by those particular Courts which are specified in that behalf by the State Government and, in fact, confers jurisdiction on only those Courts and not on all Labour Courts, which may have been constituted under S. 7 (1) of thedo not think that there is any force in this submission. When a provision has been made in S. 83-C (2) for specification of a Labour Court in that behalf by the appropriate Government, it is presumed that that Government will carry out its duty and will make the necessary specification. Even under S. 7 (1) of the Act, the power is granted to a State Government to constitute Labour Courts, and if the State Government neglects to constitute Labour Courts, the provisions of S. 38-C (2) would automatically become ineffective. This would be no ground for giving an interpretation to S. 7 (1) which would do away with the necessity of the Labour Court being constituted by a StateRule lays down that all applications under S. 33-C are to be delivered to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Department of Labour, or to such officers to whom powers may have been delegated under S. 39 of the Act.The purpose of the application being sent to the Government is clear. If the application is under S. 33-C (l), the Government is to take action on that application itself and is to realise the money claimed in that application.On the other hand, if the application happens to be under S. 33-C (2), the purpose of delivery of that application to the Secretary to the Government clearly would be that, on that application, the Government would specify the Labour Court which is to deal with that application.It appears that, in some States, the appropriate Government has, by general orders, specified Labour Courts for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under S. 33-C (2). So far as the Government of West Bengal is concerned, it did not issue any similar general order, and the intention of Rule 74 was that any workman wishing to obtain relief under S. 33-C (2) should apply to the State Government when the Government would specify the Labour Court for the purpose of dealing with that application. This position has been further clarified by a subsequent amendment of Rule 74 under which it is clearly provided that where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the workman concerned may apply to the State Government in the prescribed Form for the specification of a Labour Court for determining the amount of his dues. It is true that this Rule 74 did not in this form exists at the relevant time with which we are concerned in the present case, but we agree with the Bench of the Calcutta High Court that Rule 74, as it stood at that time, was also intended to lay down that a workman claiming relief under Section 33-C (2) must present his application to the State Government, whereupon the State Government would specify the Labour Court which was to deal with it under S. 33-C (2) of the Act.