B.D. Agrawal, J. - (1.) This group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution gives rise to common question of law and is being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) The Ordnance Parachute Factory Kanpur owned and controlled by the Central Government in the Ministry of Defence is engaged in the production of material for defence requirement, namely, parachutes, tents, military garments and uniforms. As an aftermath of the Chinese Aggression, the establishment recruited temporarily a number of persons as Tailors Grade 'C' in the grade of Rs. 85-110/- in or about November 1963. In 1966 it was felt to have become necessary to retrench them since the workload was reduced. Government took a decision that the existing Tailors may not be thrown out of employment but might be given opportunity of alternative employment so that they be adjusted in any Ordnance Factory by absorbing them in another grade if they chose to accept the same. Tailors in Grade 'C' volunteered for being absorbed in the grade of labour 'B'. Government had no objection in treating them as such so that their employment might continue. The absorption as labour 'B' in the grade of Rs. 70-85 was brought about accordingly with effect from August 19, 1966 or near about. The grades remained unchanged till 1973 when the grade of Tailors 'C' was revised to Rs. 210-290/- and the grade of labour 'B' came to be revised to Rs. 196-232/-. On June 17, 1980 the respondents put in applications individually under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the Labour Court contending that they had been appointed as Tailor 'C' and were entitled to receive the money pertaining to that grade and further that they had been admitted wrongfully in the year 1966 as labour 'B' and have ever since been paid the wages in the grade of labour 'B'. The claim laid is for the payment of the differential in the two grades for the period of 1966 till the date when the applications were made. These were resisted by the petitioner on various grounds including the lack of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to accord relief under S. 33C(2) without there having been a reference made under S. 10(1) of the Act on the footing that the question raised gave rise to an industrial dispute. The Labour Court under the impugned order dated April 9, 1985 did not consider the question of jurisdiction under S. 33C(2) but recorded the finding that the reversion made of the respondents led to the reduction of the wages payable and this was illegal being brought about without a notice under S. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The applications have, as a result, been allowed granting to the respondents the differential in the wages between the two grades during the period of 1966-1980. These are, in brief, the facts relevant common to these cases. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in so far as material, reads as under : "33-C. 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 Chap. V-A or Chap. V-B, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs 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 : Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money becomes due to the workman from the employer; Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government.";