1997 (4) TMI 541 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Respondent No. 1 to the selection grade scale.
2. Determination of Respondent No. 1 as a workman under the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.
4. Impact of the U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971 on the rights and liabilities of the Corporation and Respondent No. 1.
5. Distinction between liabilities accrued before and after the appointed day under the Acquisition Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Respondent No. 1 to the Selection Grade Scale:
The Respondent No. 1, an A.B.M.S. Doctor, claimed entitlement to the selection grade scale effective from 1.7.82, based on the completion of 16 years of continuous service. The Labour Court found that Respondent No. 1 had indeed completed the requisite service period and was eligible for the selection grade scale as per the Government Order dated 22.3.84. The Court noted that the Respondent's service record, which was not disputed by the Petitioner, confirmed this entitlement.

2. Determination of Respondent No. 1 as a Workman:
The Labour Court relied on the precedent set in Dr. P.N. Gulati v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, which held that a doctor employed by an industry to render medical aid to employees is a workman. The Court found that Respondent No. 1 did not have any supervisory or administrative powers, thus affirming his status as a workman under the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.

3. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act:
The primary issue was whether the relief sought by Respondent No. 1 was a computation from an existing right or a determination of entitlement. The Court concluded that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to compute the amount due under Section 33C(2) since it involved an existing right, not a new determination of entitlement. The Respondent's right to the selection grade scale was established and did not require further evidence.

4. Impact of the U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971:
The Court examined the provisions of the Acquisition Act, particularly Sections 3, 7, and 16. It held that Respondent No. 1 was entitled to continue with the same rights and privileges as if the undertaking had not been transferred to the Corporation. The right to the selection grade scale accrued before the acquisition date (28.10.84) and thus was an existing right enforceable against the Corporation.

5. Distinction between Liabilities Accrued Before and After the Appointed Day:
The Court highlighted that liabilities accrued before the appointed day must be claimed from the erstwhile owner through the prescribed authority under Section 7(6)(c) of the Acquisition Act. Liabilities accruing after the appointed day are the responsibility of the Corporation. The Court directed that the Labour Court's award should be set aside to the extent that it included claims for periods before the appointed day, as these should be pursued with the prescribed authority.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the Labour Court's award to the extent that it included claims for periods before the appointed day and directed the Labour Court to recompute the amount due to Respondent No. 1 based on the existing rights for the period after the appointed day. The Labour Court was instructed to complete this process within six months, providing proper opportunities to both parties. The distinction between pre- and post-acquisition liabilities was emphasized, ensuring that claims for the period before the appointed day should be addressed through the prescribed authority.