BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THESE five connected appeals have been filed by special leave challenging a common order passed by the Labour Court, Hubli on five applications presented to it under Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on behalf of five workmen of the appellant company, New Taj Mahal Cafe (P) Ltd. These five workmen were suspended by management of the appellant company on different dates by different orders, pending domestic enquiries to be held against them for misconduct. The domestic enquiry was not held in any of these cases and the management recalled the order of suspension and called upon those workmen to resume duty. This, however, happened after the presentation of the application under Sec. 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. In the applications, the workmen claimed that they entitled to full wages from the date of suspension in each case upto the date of filing the applications under Sec. 33C(2), on the ground that the orders of suspension were illegal and unauthorised. The workmen prayed to the Labour Court to compute the benefit determine the amounts due and direct the management to pay the amounts so determined to the various workmen. The Labour Court accepted these applications, determined the amounts and directed payment of the determined amounts as prayed.
(2.) THE order passed by the Labour Court was challenged by learned counsel for the appellant company before us on two grounds.The first point was that, under Sec. 33C(2) of the Act, the jurisdiction of a labour Court is confined to determining the amount claimed by a workman, if it is disputed by the employer and does not extend to deciding the existence of the right of the workman to claim the amount in case that right is denied by the employer. This argument was sought to be supported on the basis of the language of Sec. 33C(2) as it exists now after the amendment in 1964. It was urged that, on this language, the entitlement to some amount claimed by the workman is a condition precedent to an application being presented under Sec. 33C(2) and, consequently, if the right of the workman to claim any amount at all is itself not admitted by the employer, the Labour Court cannot proceed under this section. This point sought to be raised by learned counsel is already concluded by a decision of this Court in Chief Mining Engineer, M/s East India Coal Co. Ltd., Dhanbad v. Rameshwar and Others [1968 - I L.L.J. 6] where it was held :-"Since proceedings under Sec. 33C(2) are analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by a workman is in such cases in the position of an executing court, the Labour Court, like the executing court in executing proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, is competent under Sec. 33C(2) to interpret the award or settlement where the benefit is claimed under such award or settlement and it would be open to it to consider the plea of nullity where the award is made without jurisdiction. It is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer.
(3.) SINCE the scope of sub-sec. (2) is wider than that of sub-sec. (1) and the sub-section is not confined to cases arising under an award settlement or under the provisions of Chapter VA, there is no reason to hold that a benefit provided by a statute or a scheme made thereunder, without there being anything contrary under such statute or Sec. 33C(2), cannot fall within sub-section (2). Consequently, the benefit provided in the bonus scheme made under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 which remains to be computed must fall under sub-section (2) and the Labour Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and try such a claim, it being a claim in respect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial workman and his employer. The contention that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because the claim arose under the said scheme or because the benefit was monetary or because it involved any substantial question between the company and the workmen must in view of the said decision, fail."This decision plainly lays down that, if the money or the benefit is claimed by a workman on the basis that the right already exists and the existence of that right is denied, it is competent for the Labour Court in proceeding under Sec. 33C(2) to decide whether the right does not exist. In the present case, the amount that was claimed by the five workmen was based on their admitted contract of employment and on the further plea that, their suspension being unjustified, they were entitled to their wages in accordance with their condition of service. It was not a case where the workmen wanted a right to be granted to them by the labour Court which is a relief that cannot be claimed in proceedings under Sec. 33C(2) and may be claimed by raising an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, in these circumstances, was competent to arrive at the finding that the suspension of these five workmen did not extinguish their right to receive their wages for the period of suspension because of the condition of service and, thereafter, compute the amount claimed by them. This ground, therefore, fails.;