Allahabad High Court says a workman entitled to receive money, benefit from employer; Labour Court should resolve dispute related to amount

The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition held that Section 33C(2) of the Act, 1947, envisages a situation where a workman is entitled to receive money from his employer or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money then such question be decided by Labour Court as specified by appropriate Government.

A Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division.

The petition has been filed questioning the legality of order dated 02.05.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Agra in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the Labour Court was not competent to award interest in the said proceedings.

Facts leading to filing of writ petition are that opposite party no 1, Mahesh Chandra was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper on 01.05.1966 by U.P State Electricity Commission at Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh.

He attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.1997. Provisional pension was sanctioned by the Executive Engineer, Aligarh on 29.01.1997 subject to adjustment from his final pension by the Board. Before retirement, the Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh sent a letter to Executive Engineer, Electricity Store Division, Gandhi Nagar, Agra and also to respondent no 1 about No Dues Certificate and E.P.F Certificate.

On 24.06.1997, Executive Engineer, Agra informed that total dues against respondent no 1 was Rs 27,38,504/-. Thereafter, a detailed report was submitted by Executive Engineer, Vidyut Bhandar Khand, Agra on 21.07.1999 before Superintending Engineer regarding No Dues Certificate. The Executive Engineer, Vidyut Bhandar Khand, Agra informed the Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division, Aligarh that there is dues of Rs 7,110/- against respondent no 1.

Due to aforesaid reasons, the retiral dues of respondent no 1 was not paid within time by the Department. Respondent no 1, in the year 2000, filed an application under Section 33C(2) before respondent no 2. A reply was filed by the petitioner who contested the application on the ground that the Labour Court could not award interest.

By order dated 02.05.2012, the Labour Court directed for payment of 18% interest in delay payment of pension, Provident Fund and leave encashment and also directed to pay Rs1,500/- for expenses of the case.

The Court observed that,

The short question for consideration before the Court is as to whether the interest can be awarded in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act, 1947.

A glance of Section 33C clearly reveals that entire scheme which has been given under Section 33C(1) and 33C(2) is in the form of execution proceedings for recovering the money due from an employer to a workman which is under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B. Section 33C(1) enumerates a situation where the amount is payable under a settlement or an award and application is made by a workman or any person authorised by him, or in case of his death by his legal heirs and the appropriate Government on being satisfied issues a certificate for that amount to Collector to proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.

While Section 33C(2) envisages a situation where a workman is entitled to receive money from his employer or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money then such question be decided by the Labour Court as specified by appropriate Government. Meaning thereby that in case of dispute of quantum of money, the same has to be settled by the Labour Court, and once the decision is made by Labour Court, it forwards the same to appropriate Government to be recovered in the manner provided under sub-section (1) of Section 33C. Thus, the entire scheme of Section 33C is in the form of execution of the amount from the employer to be paid to the employee.

The entire mechanism as provided under Section 33C is in the form of execution, either in sub-section (1) which is the recovery of the amount quantified in the award or settlement or under sub-section (2) where the workman is entitled to receive any money or benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money from the employer. The provision does not provide for awarding interest.

In the case, though the provisional pension was granted immediately but the other retiral dues could not be paid as there stood outstanding amount against respondent no 1, and on the submission of No Dues Certificate, the amount was released. The Labour Court was swayed away with the fact that there was a delay on the part of petitioner in releasing retiral dues which was payable to respondent no 1 on his retirement.

“Heavy reliance has been placed by respondent counsel upon the decision of Kerala High Court rendered in case of M.M Joseph (supra) wherein the Court had proceeded to grant interest on the principles of equity. I am not in agreement with the decision of Their Lordships at Kerala High Court, as it is well settled by the Apex Court that proceedings under Section 33C(2) are in the form of execution, and awarding interest would be beyond the scope of provisions of Section 33C(2). I am in respectful disagreement with the view taken by the Kerala High Court as to the applicability of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure in light of the decision of Apex Court in case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd (supra).

Moreover from perusal of the records of the case, it is clear that the delay cannot be attributed solely to petitioner as there stood outstanding amount against respondent no 1 which after being settled that pensionary benefits were released.

Thus, in view of above, I find that the Labour Court was completely misled in granting interest @ 18 % for the delayed payment. It was beyond the competence of the Labour Court to have awarded interest, as under the scheme of Section 33C(2) granting of interest does not find any place”, the Court further observed while allowing the petition.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found that the order dated 02.05.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Agra is unsustainable in the eyes of law as far as grant of interest @ 18% is concerned and the same is set aside to that extent.

from India Legal https://ift.tt/uMmvlqh