MANAGEMENT OF SOCKLATINGA TEA ESTATE Vs. N.J. KOREAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition comes be fore us on an order of reference made by a Division Bench of this Court which is extracted below.

(2.) TWO points arise for consideration in his reference (l) Whether an application for computation of a workman's entitlement under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter called 'the Act') could be made to Labour Court without the same having been specified by the State Government in regard to the dispute that is to be referred to under Section 33C(2) and (2) whether the workman could refer the dispute under Section 33C(2) directly to the Labour Court and not by an application to the State Government. Before we consider these points, it would be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 7 of the Act, which deals with Labour Courts, is as follows:

(3.) IT may be seen from the language of Section 33C(2) that the amount which the workman is entitled to receive is to be determined by the Labour Court, which is specified by the State Government in this behalf. In other words, the Labour Court has got to be specifically mentioned and it should also be mentioned by that a State Government that a particular matter which is referred to under Section 33C(2) is to be determined by the Labour Court Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Management of Socklatinga Tea Estate contends that the particular Labour Court, was not specified, nor was the matter in regard to the dispute in this case mentioned by the Government in a reference to the Labour Court under Sub -section (2) of Section 33C. To this Mr. Choudhuri, the learned Counsel for the workman Respondent No. 1 Shri N.J. Korean, stated that as there has been only one Labor Court for the whole State of Assam no particular specification is necessary and that all duties that could be performed by the Labour Court under the Act could be performed by that Labour Court, as that is the only Labour Court for the State. It may be that there has been only one Labour Court for the whole State. But that Labour Court, according to the Sub -section has got to be specified for performing this particular duty and no material has been placed before us to show that any such specific earmarking of this duty has been made by the Government in regard to the one Labour Court, which was functioning in the State. In view of the fact that the Sub -section uses the word specified and also the words in this behalf, there can be no doubt that the insistence is on the specification as well as with reference to the particular subject -matter of dispute. In the inslant case as it is not specified by the State Government in a reference that the Labour Court, which is the only Labour Court in the State of Assam, is entrusted with the duty of determining the amount payable to the workman Respondent No. 1, we feel that the Labour Court had acquired no jurisdiction to dispose of the matter under Sub -section (2) of Section 33C, simply on an application filed before it by the Respondent No. 1. It is possible that there may be only one Labour Court and yet the the State Government may not entrust certain matters to that, Labour Court The whole object of the Sub -section is to reserve the right to the State Government to specify the duty in the particular circumstances of the case, so that these conditions must be complied with before jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C could be invoked.