Pritpal Singh, J. - (1.) -In this writ petition an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, dated 9th of Sept., 1978 has been questioned by which the petitioner-Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur, was directed under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to pay Rs. 1,831/- to Harbhajan Singh respondent No.3 as gratuity.
(2.) Harbhajan Singh respondent was employee as Octroi Clerk by the petitioner-Municipal Committee on 5th of Oct., 1966. His services were terminated on 1st of Oct., 1976, because of prolonged absence from duty without leave. He filed an application under section 33(c)(2) of the Act claiming the amounts of provident fund and gratuity. The Municipal Committee paid him the provident fund due to him but refused to pay the gratuity. The Labour Court in the impugned order held that Harbhajan Singh was entitled to received Rs.1,831/- as gratuity from the Municipal Committee and directed the latter to pay the same.
(3.) The order of the Labour Court has been challenged on the sole ground that the application of Harbhajan Singh claiming gratuity was not maintainable under section 33(c)(2) of the Act. In support of this contention the learned petitioner's counsel cited State of Punjab Vs. The Labour Court, Jullundur and others, AIR 1979 S.C. 1981, wherein it was held that the proceedings for payment of gratuity due under the payment of Gratuity Act must be taken under that Act and not under any other Act. It was ruled that the applications filed by the employees under section 33(c)(2) of the Act did not lie and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Municipal Committee, in my view, could not take benefit of this judgment, because no such objection was raised before the Labour Court. This view is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sohan Singh and others Vs. The General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur and others, AIR 1981 S.C. 1862. In that case the workmen had filed applications before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, under section 33(c)(2) of the Act. The applications were allowed by the Labour Court. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a writ petition filed by the management set aside the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the applications under section 33(c)(2) of the Act were not entertain-able by the Labour Court. The Supreme Court in appeal held that the view taken by the ' High Court was not correct because the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not challenged by the management in that Court. It was observed that the management had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and when a decision was given against them by the Labour Court they, for the first time, challenged its jurisdiction to try that issue in the High Court. Taking this view it was ruled that the High Court ought not to have entertained the point of jurisdiction urged on behalf of the management and set aside the order of the Labour Court on that ground alone. This judgment of the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the present case. In the light of this judgment it is not possible to set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court on the point of jurisdiction urged by. Municipal Committee for the first time in this writ petition.;