Labour Court “cannot adjudicate disputes” related to employer-employee matters: Supreme Court
Labour court is only an executing court having no authority to entertain employer-employee matters rather can only adjudicate on matters related to claim settlement or interpretation of award and likewise is upheld by the Supreme Court of India through a division bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MR SHAH and HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE BV NAGARATHNA in the case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2022). Brief facts of the case are that the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant M/s Bombay Chemical Industries, and Presiding Officer pursuant to Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Essentially, the present defendant chose to file an application with the Labor Court pursuant to Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, claiming the difference in wages against the appellant. He denied that there was an employer-employee relationship and argued that the defendant had not engaged in it in any way. On 28 November 2017, the Labor Court ruled in favor of the defendant and awarded compensation to the appellant. The aggrieved appellant preferred to file a written petition with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the defense and upheld the Labor Court’s decision. The appellant took it to the Supreme Court for appeal. The appellants contended that When a serious problem with the employer-employee relationship arose and the defendant’s employment as a salesman at any time was seriously challenged, the Labor Court should not have considered the defendant’s application under Section. 33(C)(2) of IDA 1947. Instead of being decided by the Labor Court, this dispute should have been decided in reference to Section 10 of the IDA 1947. The respondents argued that it is a false case with the object to be freed from the obligation to pay the difference in wages, as claimed by the defendant. He further stated that the existence of documentary evidence proved that the defendant was working as a dealer in the appellant’s establishment. However, after an assessment of the evidence and consideration of the material available in the records, the Employment Tribunal allowed the application. The apex court held that pursuant to Section 33(C)(2), the jurisdiction of the Labor Court is that of an enforcement court and can only interpret the decision or settlement on which the claim is based.The order by the Labor Court therefore goes beyond the jurisdiction granted under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.The Supreme Court did not appreciate the facts cited and affirmed the same without specifying the extent and scope of the Labor Court’s jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Labor Disputes Act. The court set aside the order passed by the High Court and the Labor Court.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court IV U.P. Kanpur Nagar under Section 33(C of the Industrial Disputes Act the original writ difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012. The said application was contested by the appellant herein categorical stand of the appellant that respondent No.2 the establishment as a salesman. That by order dated 28.11.2017 the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court allowed the said application and directed the appellant passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court Court. By the impugned judgment and order the High dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order and respondent No.2 and that it was seriously disputed that respondent No.2 was at any point of time in have entertained allowed the application under Section order passed by the Labour Court is completely without jurisdiction. Therefore the High Court ought to have set India and another Vs. Kankuben By Lrs. and Others 9 SCC 292 in support of his submissions that in a proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court cannot adjudicate the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the 3.2 Making the above submissions and relying on the above The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Dr. Vinod W­6 to show that respondent No.2 was working as a salesman with the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant came out with a false case to get out of the application. It is therefore submitted that when on appreciation of evidence and considering the material It is submitted that when on the face of the record available it was found by the Labour Court that was found a difference in the salary pay for the period At the outset it is required to be noted that respondent No.2 herein filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act demanding difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to No.2 that he was working with the appellant as a stand that respondent No.2 was never engaged by the appellant. It was specifically the case on behalf of the appellant that respondent No.2 had never worked in the establishment in the post of salesman. Therefore once there was a serious dispute that respondent No.2 had very serious dispute raised by the appellant that claimed by respondent No.2 thereafter it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer­employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.2. As per the has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of is based. As held by this Court in the case of Ganesh Razak and Anr. the labour court’s jurisdiction law without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen proceedings for In the case of Kankuben it is observed and a pre­existing benefit or one flowing from a pre­existing right. The difference between a pre­existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit which is no prior adjudication on the issue whether respondent salesman and the documents relied upon by respondent appropriate proceedings by way of reference and get his right crystalized and or adjudicate upon. Therefore the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court has not appreciated the aforesaid facts and has confirmed the same without adverting to the scope and ambit of the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is under the Industrial Disputes Act including that of reference to adjudicate his right as an employee of the appellant as claimed by him. As and when such proceedings are initiated the same to be considered in anyway being influenced by the present order as this parties on the aspect of employer­employee relationship