2010 (2) TMI 1246 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Maintainability of the application due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship.
3. Lack of evidence supporting the application.
4. Applicability of res judicata.
5. Legal basis for granting interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Application:
The Respondent argued that the application under Section 33-C(2) was filed after a considerable delay. However, the court found this contention to be unjust. The Petitioner filed the application within five months of receiving the payment, which was delayed by almost eleven years. The court emphasized that upholding the Respondent's argument would reward the Respondent's unreasonable and contumacious conduct in delaying the payment despite multiple court orders.

2. Maintainability of the Application:
The Respondent contended that the application was not maintainable as there was no employer-employee relationship at the time of filing. The learned Presiding Officer had held that since the workman had retired and was a pensioner, the Petitioner could not be considered a workman under Section 33-C(2). The court found this view contrary to the provisions of Section 33-C(2) and the Supreme Court judgment in National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pritam Singh Gill. The court held that a workman could file for recovery of money or benefits even after the cessation of the employer-employee relationship if the claim pertains to a period when such a relationship existed.

3. Lack of Evidence:
The Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to furnish any evidence supporting the application. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the facts were admitted and there was nothing required to be proved. The Respondent did not deny the order dated 30th September 1992, the subsequent orders of the court, or the date of payment.

4. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The Respondent contended that the claim was barred by res judicata as no interest was claimed in the first application under Section 33-C(2). The court found that Section 33-C of the ID Act allows for recovery of money due from an employer and that a separate action for interest due to delay in payment is permissible. The delay in payment of the decretal amount provides an independent cause of action for interest.

5. Legal Basis for Granting Interest:
The court held that the Labour Court has the power under Section 33-C(2) to order an employer to pay interest for the delay in payment. The court relied on Sections 3(1)(a) and (b) and 4 of the Interest Act, 1978, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court cited judgments from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the Bombay High Court to support its decision. The court emphasized that denying interest would lead to a miscarriage of justice and encourage employers to disregard court orders.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, which had dismissed the Petitioner's application under Section 33-C(2) for interest. The court directed the Respondent to pay the Petitioner interest at 12% per annum from 30th September 1992 to 14th March 2003 and costs fixed at Rs. 1,500 on or before 30th June 2010. The court also noted that the Petitioner could file a further application for future interest from the date of the application till the date of payment.