http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURBACHAN SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  O R D E R      Delay condoned.      The respondent,  when he  entered into  service did not place  any   documentary  evidence   like   school   leaving certificate  etc.   insupport  of  his   date  of  birth. Consequently, his  casecame  to be  referred to the Medical Board. Before  the Medical Board, the respondent statedthat his age was 20 years,but  the  Board on  the  basis his appearance and other features was of the opinion that he was around 25  years. He  was due  to  retire  from service  on November 30,1980.  but he was allowed to retireon 30.11.84. On reference,  the Railway  Board gavethe  ex post  facto sanction and  directed the  petitioner to  retire him w.e.f. 30.11.84 an  retain him in service from 1.12.80 to 30.11.84 after  givinghim  re-employment   on usual terms and conditions.  The   respondentfeeling  aggrieved,   filed application before  Labour Court  underSection 33-C(ii) of the IndustrialDisputes  Act,1947  claimingall  retiral benefits; the  Labour Court  granted him reliefs prayedfor. The petitioners challenged theorder of the Labour Court in W.P. No.  9647/96, which  was dismissedby the High Court in limine on 10.7.1996. Thus, thisspecialleave petition.      The   power    and  jurisdiction  of   the    Labour Court/Industrial  Court  under Section   33-C(ii)  of the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 were dealt with by this Court in Municipal  Corporation of  Delhi v.Ganesh Razak  &Anr. [9198501  SCC 235]  Itwas  held thatthe labour  Court is devoid of  power and  jurisdiction to  adjudicate upon fresh claim or  to give directions onthat basis. TheLabour Court at best has power  to interpret the award and then work out the wages  payable to the Workmen in terms of the awardetc. Shri Singhvi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner contends  that  inview  of  the  above decision, the  view taken by the LabourCourt is not correct in law.  We find some force inthe contention raised by the learnedcounsel. However, in view of the law already settled by this court in  the above  judgment,we think that on the facts  and   circumstances,  this   case  doesnot  warrant interference. However,it is  directedthat the judgment of the High  Courtor  Labour Court  should not  be treated  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

precedent for  any future casesas it is not consistentwith the lawlaid bythis Court.      The Special Leave petitionis accordingly dismissed.