- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent No. 2 raised a claim alleging that he was appointed as a Steno on 18-12- 1989 and that there were other Stenos who were performing similar duties as performed by the workman and whereas other stenos were being paid the wages @ Rs. 3,245/- per month, the workman was only getting a fixed amount of Rs. 1,200/- per month and therefore, the workman was entitled to receive the difference of wages amounting to Rs. 44,990/- for the period 1-1-1994 to 31-10-1995. The said application was opposed by the petitioner contending that the workman was never appointed as a Stenographer and that, the workman was appointed as a clerk on daily wages and that, he was paid the wages which was payable to a daily wager. The workman was never appointed as a Stenographer nor was he discharging the duties which a regular stenographer was discharging. The petitioner further submitted that the claim raised by the workman could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) and that, such a dispute could only be adjudicated upon a reference being made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court without adverting itself to the nature of the dispute raised and without considering the fact as to whether the claim of the workman could be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 33- C (2), held that on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the workman was entitled to the difference of wages on the post of Stenographer. The Labour Court found that the workman was performing the work of a Steno and that the work which he was performing was also being performed by a regular Steno. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri A. K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sumati Rani Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THE moot question which arises for consideration is, what is the scope of the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act? Whether the claim of the workman is a benefit which could be adjudicated under Section 33-C (2) of the Act? Whether the present dispute could be adjudicated in a proceedings under Section 33- C (2) of the Act or not? The scope of Section 33-C (2) was considered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Limited v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. , AIR 1964 SC 743. The Supreme Court held : "in our opinion, on a fair and reasonable construction of sub-section (2) it is clear that if a workman's right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may have to be determined by the Labour Court. Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of money, the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that benefit. If the said right is not disputed, nothing more needs to be done and the Labour Court can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in terms of money; but if the said right is disputed the Labour Court must deal with that question and decide whether the workman has the right to receive the benefit as alleged by him and it is only if the Labour Court answers this point in favour of the workman that the next question of making the necessary computation can arise. " And further held : "the claim under Section 33-C (2) clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court by sub-section (2 ). As Maxwell has observed "where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it immediately also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its execution. We must accordingly hold that Section 33-C (2) takes within its purview cases of workman who claimed that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. ";