- (1.) The petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton and blended fibre. Its factory is situated at Kanpur and its Headquarter is situated at Kamla Tower, Dwarikadhish Road, Kanpur. The company has engaged a number of workmen in connection with its manufacture and sale of cotton and blended fibre. In pursuance of Section 45 of the Factories Act, the company maintains a canteen for the benefit of its workmen. The persons employed in the canteen raised a demand for being given the same wages and dearness allowance and other benefits which was being paid to the workmen employed in the factory. The petitioner company did not accept the demand made by the canteen employees. Thereupon conciliation proceedings were taken which also failed as no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. On the report of the Conciliation Officer, the State Government by its order dated December 28, 1977, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner company filed writ petition No. 2577 of 1978 in this Court challenging the validity of the order of reference and obtained stay of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal.
(2.) Meanwhile the respondent-workmen who are employed in the canteen made an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Central Act) before the Labour Court at Kanpur for computation of certain benefits including wages and dearness allowance. The petitioner company filed objection and asserted that the application under Section 33-C (2) was not maintainable as the benefits claimed by the respondent-workmen was disputed by the company and the dispute was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal which had been referred to adjudication by the State Government by its order dated 28-12-1977. On the pleadings raised by the parties, the Labour Court framed four different issues and directed the parties to produce evidence by its order dated 19-4-1979. By that order the Labour Court further observed that the preliminary objection as well as the mertis of the case would be decided simultaneously after the evidence was produced by the parties. The petitioner company thereupon filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Labour Court dated April 19, 1979.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since there was interim order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 2577 of 1978, the Labour Court could not proceed further in the matter. This contention is no longer open to the petitioner as the writ petition No. 2577 of 1978 has been dismissed by us by a separate order and the stay order has been discharged. Learned counsel then urged that since the petitioner company had raised a dispute that the respondent-workmen were not its employees and no relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties, the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Central Act was not maintainable. Learned counsel further urged that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner should have been decided by the Labour Court before proceeding to hear and decide the dispute on merits. Section 33-C (2) provides a summary procedure for granting relief to the workmen as it permits the workmen to approach the Labour Court for computing benefits which is capable of being computed in terms of money. A workman may approach the Labour Court for computing the benefits in terms of money. Prior to the amendment of Section 33-C (2) (Central Act) in 1964" a workman could not claim monetary benefits like wages, dearness allowance and bonus etc. as held by the Supreme Court in Kaya Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 AIR(SC) 1488. Even though the Supreme Court was dealing with the scope of Section 6-H of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947, but the principles laid down by the Supreme Court are, applicable to the interpretation of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as the provisions of Section 6-H are analogous to Section 33-C of the Central Act. After the amendment of the Central Act the position has changed and now it is permissible for a workman to approach the Labour Court claiming benefits like wages, dearness allowance etc.;