1972 (3) TMI 88 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application is legally maintainable.
2. Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
3. Whether the petitioner was dismissed with effect from 19-9-1967, and its effect.
4. Whether the applicant is entitled to any of the benefits claimed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the application is legally maintainable:
The Labour Court framed the issue of whether the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was legally maintainable. The Court found in favor of the respondent, holding that the application was indeed maintainable. The appellant contested this, arguing that since the respondent was dismissed, he ceased to be a workman and thus had no locus standi to approach the Labour Court. However, the judgment clarified that Section 33C(2) could be invoked by a dismissed workman in respect of benefits and salary due for the period prior to dismissal. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 33C is to provide a speedy remedy for individual workmen to enforce their existing rights without having to depend on collective bargaining processes.

2. Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, arguing that the respondent, having been dismissed, was not a workman at the time of the application. The Court, however, held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) includes the power to determine whether a dismissed workman has a right to receive benefits for the period prior to dismissal. The Court cited several precedents, including the Central Bank of India v. P. S. Rajagopalan and Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameswar, to support its view that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims for benefits due before dismissal.

3. Whether the petitioner was dismissed with effect from 19-9-1967, and its effect:
The Labour Court found that the petitioner was indeed dismissed with effect from 19-9-1967. The effect of this dismissal was central to the appellant's argument that the respondent could not claim benefits under Section 33C(2). However, the Court clarified that the dismissal did not affect the respondent's right to claim benefits for the period prior to dismissal. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) includes the authority to compute benefits due for the period before dismissal, thus upholding the respondent's claim.

4. Whether the applicant is entitled to any of the benefits claimed:
The Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 5,195 as the balance of salary at the rate of Rs. 150 per month for the suspension period and other allowances, totaling Rs. 10,259.98. The appellant contended that the respondent's claim should be adjudicated under Section 10 of the Act as an industrial dispute. However, the Court noted that Section 33C(2) is intended to provide a speedy remedy for individual workmen to enforce their existing rights. The Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to the claimed benefits for the period of suspension prior to dismissal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Labour Court's decision that the application under Section 33C(2) was maintainable, the Labour Court had jurisdiction, and the respondent was entitled to the claimed benefits for the period prior to dismissal. The judgment emphasized the broad and beneficial construction of Section 33C(2) to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief, ensuring that individual workmen can enforce their rights without resorting to lengthy procedures. The appeal was dismissed with costs.