- (1.) I have had the privilege of going through the judgment recorded by my learned brother Bains, J. With great respect for him, am unable to subscribe to the view expressed therein. The reasons for arriving at a different conclusion are detailed below.
(2.) The undisputed facts of the case which have given rise to the present reference are that Madan Lal, deceased was a railway employee and he died on August 19, 1971. A sum of Rs. 10,022 was due to him from the railways as provident fund and Rs. 2,436 as gratuity. Upinder Dutt Respondent claiming to be the adopted son of the deceased applied to the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for a direction to the railway administration for payment of the provident fund and gratuity due to the deceased, to him as his legal heir. The railway administration admitted that Rs. 10,022 as provident fund and Rs. 2.436 as gratuity was due to the deceased but raised objections about he maintainability of the petition and locus standi of the Petitioner. During the pendency of the petition, the railways gave up all objections and agreed to make the payment to the person held entitled by the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed the railways to pay the provident fund and gratuity amount to Upinder Dutt.--vide order dated September 21. 1973. The railways did not make the payment and instead challenged the order of the Labour Court in Civil Writ No. 4369 of 1973 and urged that it could not entertain the claim of Upinder Dutt as an heir of Madan Lal deceased workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. In view of the conflicting views of different High Courts on this legal point, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench and for the similar reason the latter desired it to be decided by a Full Bench for the added reason of the point involved being complex. This is how this matter has come up before us.
(3.) Section 33-C of the Act was enacted by Act No. 36 of 1956 and was substituted by Act No. 36 of 1964. Section 33-C as it stood before its substitution in 1964 read: 33-C. Recovery of money due from an employee: (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provision of Chapter V-A, the workman 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. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in Sub-section (1). (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case.;