Bhargava, J. - (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) of the 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.
(2.) For convenience, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33-C of the Act, as they stood at the relevant time, are reproduced below:- "33C. Recovery of money due from an employer:- (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, 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 may be made under 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 be recovered as provided for in sub-section (1) ". 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 appropriate Government and, consequently, the only question that falls for determination is whether it can be held that the Second Labour Court, to which applications were presented by the appellants, had been specified as "the Court to make the determination under Sec. 33-C (2) . It was 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-C (2) . On behalf of the appellants, it was urged that the Second Labour Court should be held to have jurisdiction to deal with those applications, because it was constituted under Section 7 (l) of the Act and every Labour Court constituted under the Act would be competent to make the determination under Section 33-C (2) by virtue of the provision contained in that sub-section itself.
(3.) Section 7 (1) of the Act lays down that:- "The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act." The submission which was made before the High Court was that the matter which was raised by the applications presented on behalf of the appellants related to one of the matters specified in the Second Schedule, because the Second Schedule at Item No. 6 contained the entry "all matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule" and determination of money value of a benefit claimed by a workman is not one of the matters specified in the Third Schedule. This contention was rejected by the appellate Bench of the High Court. It was not sought to be pressed before us by learned counsel for the appellants when it was pointed out to him that even if it be held that the matter raised by the appellants in their applications related to one of those enumerated in the Second Schedule, that would be immaterial, because, under S. 7 (1) of the Act, a Labour Court is constituted for the purpose of adjudication of industrial disputes relating to those matters, and it cannot possibly be contended that these disputes raised by individual workmen for determination of amounts due to them under the award constituted industrial disputes. In fact, this Court, in Central Bank of India Ltd. v P. S. Rajagopalan, (1964) 3 SCR 140 clearly held that proceedings under S. 33-C of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and are not meant to include in them. Proceedings for adjudication of industrial disputes which can only be competently decided by a Labour Court on reference by the appropriate Government under S. 10 (1) of the Act. It was in view of this clear legal position that the counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the second part of S. 7 (1) of the Act, under which Labour Courts are constituted "for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act" ;