N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment dated 27.2.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in M.J. Case No. 5 of 1989. The said case was filed by the petitioner, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying for computation of the monetary benefit amounting to Rs. 19.504/ - together with interest @ 12% per annum. The petitioner happened to be an employee of the respondents. He had been holding the post of Construction Supervisor (Mechanical) EEP Zone. B.S. Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. He claimed that he was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was allotted quarter No. VIII/A 2255 D -type where he was residing. With a view to victimize the petitioner, the officers of the respondent started deducting penal rent of the said quarter Rs. 477/ - per month from June, 1986. The applicant filed P.W. Case No. 22/86 before the Labour Court, B.S. City - authority under the payment of Wages Act. The said case was disposed of on 21.5.1988 holding the said deduction illegal. The respondent was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 22,385/ - within three months. In spite of the said order, the respondents did not stop the deduction of penal rent of the said quarter. The petitioner filed the said application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act praying for recovery of the penal rent deducted from him. The respondents had appeared before learned Labour Court and stated, inter alia, that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act is not maintainable. The quarter, which was allotted to the petitioner, was cancelled on the ground of his illegal occupancy. The case before the authority under the payment of Wages Act was for different period and the order passed in the said case was complied with. The question raised by the petitioner does not come within the scope and cannot be determined under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The petitioner should have approached the competent Court/authority for declaration that the order of charging the amount, which was questioned in the said petition, was illegal/unjustified. The amount sought to be recovered is neither the admitted amount nor there was any adjudication of the petitioner's claim by a competent Court. The claim of the petitioner is disputed and, as such, that does not come within the ambit of Section 33C(2) of the Act.
(3.) AFTER elaborate hearing and consideration the facts; evidences adduced by the parties and materials on record, learned Labour Court came to the finding that the petitioner's claim is disputed and there is no earlier adjudication of the petitioner's claim by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The claim is also not admitted by the employer. Learned Labour Court held that the said proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act is in the nature of execution proceeding for the purpose of executing the existing right and not a proceeding for determining/ascertaining the seriously disputed claim. Learned Labour Court thus dismissed the case. The petitioner has sought to assail the impugned judgment on the ground that learned Labour Court has not properly considered the facts and evidences on record and has mechanically dismissed the petitioner's case holding the petition not maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. The finding of the Court below is erroneous and unsustainable in law and is fit to be set aside by this Court.;