Decided on July 22,1963

TREOGI NATH Respondents


Mitter, J. - (1.)This is an appeal from an order making absolute Rule directing the Second Labour Court to hear and determine an application presented to it under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.)The matter arises thus: By an award of the Fifth industrial Tribunal published on September 19, 1959 forty one persons, the petitioners before this Court, who had been dismissed from service by the two respondent companies were directed to be reinstated in service and held entitled to half their salary for the entire period from October 2, 1953 to the date of their actual return to duty after the award. The respondent companies appealed unsuccessfully first to the Appellate Tribunal and then to the Supreme Court. Orders for stay of operation of the award obtained by them during the pendency of the appeals were ultimately vacated on October 15, 1957. According to the petitioners they had offered to resume their duties immediately after the publication of the award of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal but the companies refuses to take them in until the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court. According to the companies the petitioners newer offered to resume their duties prior to October 15, 1957 and were not entitled to do so by virtue of the orders for stay of operation of the award. This led to a difference between the parties as to the amounts due to the petitioners on the basis of the award. The petitioners applied to the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, for the determination of the amounts due to them. The companies raised a preliminary objection as to the Jurisdiction of the Labour Court In the matter. The short point taken by the companies was that in the absence of an order specifying the Second Labour Court as a Court for computation of benefits mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act the said Court was not competent to hear the application of the petitioners and determine or compute the amounts, if any, due to them. The objection was upheld by the Labour Court wife the result that the petitioners moved this Court by in application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the Second Labour Court not to give effect to the order made by it on February 15, 1961 upholding the preliminary objection as to jurisdiction raised by the companies. The Rule which was issued by a learned single Judge of this Court was ultimately made absolute and the companies have come up in appeal.
(3.)The provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33-C contained in Chapter VII of the Act are as follows:
"(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed In terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that Buy be made tinder this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government, and the amount so determined may to recovered as provided for in Sub-section (1)."
Rule 74 of the Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules framed in 1958 provides:
"An application under Section 33-C shall be delivered parsonally or forwarded by registered post in triplicate to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the department of Labour or to such officers to whom powers have been delegated under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act"

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.