- (1.) THIS case was referred by the order of a Divis on Bench dated December 6, 1974. The question that arises for determination in this reference is as to whether any person not being a workman himself can claim dues of a deceased workman as his heir or nominee through Labour Court under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this reference are as under: One Madan Lal, son of Jagdish Rai, was working as a brakesman at Ludhiana on the Northern Railway. He died on August 19, 1972, while working as a brakesman. A sum of Rs. 12,458 was lying with the Railways to the credit of the deceased workman on account of provident fund and gratuity. Respondent No. 2, Upinder Dutt, made a claim to this amount as an heir of Madan Lal deceased. Northern Railways refused to make the payment to respondent No. 2 on the ground that as the claim exceeded Rs. 5,000, the amount could not be given unless the claimant obtained a succession certificate from a competent Court. Consequently respondent No. 2 made an application under Section 33c (2) of the Act before respondent No. 1 on October 13, 1972, for adjudication. It was alleged in the application that he was the adopted son of the deceased workman and hence was entitled to the payment. Respondent No. 2, that is, Upinder Dutt, succeeded before the Labour Court and the Labour Court held that Upinder Dutt (respondent No. 2) as the adopted son was entitled to the amount standing to the credit, of the deceased workman and directed respondent No. 3 to release the aforesaid amount. Dissatisfied by this order, the General Manager, Northern Railways-filed the present petition. The matter first came before a learned single Judge who referred it to the Division Bench. Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench and that is how we are seized of the matter.
(3.) MR. P. S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, canvassed before us that the respondent No. 2 on his own showing is an adopted son and nominee of the deceased workman, and he being himself not a workman, is not competent under law to make application under Section 33c (2) of the Act and his precise argument is that an application under Section 33c (2) could only be made by a workman himself against his employer and not by his nominee or his heir and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter on an application filed by a person other than the workman himself.;