- (1.) THE petitioner who is employed as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways was not paid increments and thus, he made an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') whereby he laid a claim of Rs. 22,285/- on account of wages of increments, which according to him, were not paid. Before the Labour Court the stand of the Department was that increments of the petitioner were stopped and the orders stopping increments were conveyed to him which were still in full force, the same having not been set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction. It was further pleaded by the Department that the application was bad on the ground of unreasonable delay and the same was not maintainable as the petitioner had no existing right and also that there was a dispute regarding entitlement of the petitioner to these increments.
(2.) THE Labour Court by its award dated March 9, 1994 declined the prayer of the petitioner and dismissed his application and while doing so, it came to the conclusion that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction as illegality of the order to stoppage of increments could not be gone into in proceedings Under Section 33-C (2) of the Act and that the petitioner having no existing right, his application Under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was not maintainable and he was, therefore, not entitled to arrears.
(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Smt. Kantamana v. General Manager South Eastern Railway, Calcutta and Ors. 1983 (3) S. L. R. 795 and Janta Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Labour Court Jullundur and Anr. 1987 (1) S. L. R. 273 vehemently contended that the orders of stoppage of increments were illegal, void and, therefore, the Labour Court erred in declining the prayer of the petitioner.;