NATARAJAN R Vs. LAKSHMI MILLS COMPANY LIMITED COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals which arise from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., have been heard together as they involve the determination of a common question of law relating to the scope and extent of S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In Writ Appeal No. 84 of 1962, the appellant was originally entertained in the year 1954 in the machine shop department of the Lakshmi Mills, Ltd., Coimbatore. He was made permanent in that post on 1 January 1956. Being an unskilled worker he was put in the lowest category with a basic wage of Rs. 26 per month. Early in June 1956 the management was converting hand reels into power reels and the appellant was directed to work in the reeling section where conversion work was going on, being temporarily designated as a power reel fitter.

(2.) AFTER the process of conversion was over he was transferred back from 1 April 1957 to the mechanical shop department his basic wages were increased to Rs. 32-8-0. The appellant continued to do work as an unskilled labourer in the lowest category till 3 October 1959. He then made a claim to the labour court at Coimbatore that he was a fitter and that appropriate wages to that category of workers under the industrial award should be paid to him. He therefore sought to recover from the management a sum of money representing the difference in wages between what he had received and what was due to him had he been designated as fitter. The management disputed the jurisdiction of the labour court to decide the question whether the appellant was a fitter or was merely an unskilled fitter helper. The labour court upheld the claim of the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 316-8-0 as the difference in wages due to him.

(3.) THE labour court overruled the preliminary objection taken by the management as to its jurisdiction to decide the dispute and posted the case for further evidence.THE managements in the two respective cases filed applications to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of the labour court as amounting to usurpation of jurisdiction. Veeraswami, J., allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order of the labour court. THE learned Judge was of opinion that S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could only refer to ascertainment of benefits derived under an industrial settlement or award or to matters coming under Chap. V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that as the claims in the instant case did not come under those categories specified in S. 33C (1), the labour court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. This view cannot now be supported as correct, having regard to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan where it has been held that S.33C (2) of the Act would comprehend claims even other than those based on settlement or award or made under the provisions of Chap. V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.