http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NAMOR ALI CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CENTRAL INLAND WATER  SPORT CORPORATION LTD.  AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1977

BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  275

ACT: Industrial   Disputes  Act,  1947--Jurisdiction  of   Labour Court--Interpretation of section 33C(1) and (2).

HEADNOTE: The appellants, workmen of the respondent company, filed  an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947, in the Labour Court asking it to  compute  their wages  due  from  the respondent on  the  basis  of  certain settlements  said to have been arrived at between  them  and the  management.   Holding that each of the workman  in  the Assam  Sector  was also entitled to take  advantage  of  the settlement  between  the company and its employees  in  West Bengal,  the Labour Court allowed their application in  part rejecting only that portion of the claim of the workmen  for Rs.13/- p.m. from Feb. 1971 to Mar., 1972.  The Gauhati High Court  allowed the writ application filed by the  management and quashed the order of the Labour Court. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, HELD  :  (1) The High Court Committed an error  in  narrowly interpreting section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947.   There  are  two parts of  the  ’sub-section  (2)  of section  33C of the Act.  The first part is  concerned  with the money claim simpliciter and the second part speaks about computation  in terms of money of any benefit to  which  the workman  is  entitled.   Where any workman  is  entitled  to receive  from employer any money and if any question  arises as  to  the amount of money due, then the  question  may  be decided  by  the  Labour  Court.   The  expression  "if  any question  arises  as to the amount of  money  due"  embraces within its ambit any’ one or more of four kinds of disputes, namely  : (1) Whether there is any settlement or  award  as, alleged?,  (2)  Whether any workman is entitled  to  receive from  the employer money at all under any settlement  or  an award etc. ? (3) If so, what be the rate or quantum of  such amount ? and, (4) Whether the amount claimed is due or  not? A  dispute  as to all such questions or any  of  them  would attract  the  provisions of section 33C (2) of the  Act  and make the remedy available to the workman concerned.  If  the right to get the money on the basis of the settlement or the award  is not established, no amount of  money will  be due. If  it is established, then it has to be found out,  albeit, it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

For finding it out, it is not necessary that there should be a  dispute as to the amount of money due also.   The  fourth kind  of dispute will be covered by phrase "amount of  money due". [207 A, C-H, 208 A] Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc.  (1964) 3  S.C.R.  140; R. D. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.  Ltd.  v. Labour  Court  Nagpur & Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580;  and  Sahu Minerals  and Properties Ltd.  V. Presiding Officer,  Labour Court and others, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745, followed. (2)Satisfaction  of  the appropriate Government  which  is spoken  of in sub-section (1) of section 33C of the  Act  in their  prima facie satisfaction when a claim is made by  any workman before the Government for issuance of a  certificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount due.  If  the appropriate Government finds that the amount claimed by  the workman is due- and there is no such dispute which needs any adjudication  by  the Labour Court in accordance  with  sub- section (2) or the dispute raised is not bona fide, then 206 the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount  due to  the Collector who shall proceed to recover the  same  in the manner as an arrears of land revenue. [208 D-E] Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R. 977, not applicable.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL   APPELLATE   JURISDICTION   :   Civil   Appeal    No. 1578 of 1973. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2- 5-73  of  the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule  No.  778  of 1972. M.K.  Ramamurthi, A. K. Ganguly and D. P.  Mukherjee  for the Appellants. Niren  De, M. K. Banerjee, S. M. Mandel, A. G. Menesses  for respondent No. 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA,  J.-This  is an appeal by special leave  from  the judgment  and order of the Gauhati High Court dated the  2nd of  May, 1973 setting aside the order of the  Labour  Court, Gauhati dated the 26th July, 1972.  The facts are in a  very narrow compass and the point involved is short. The appellants, workmen of the, respondent company, filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, in  the Labour  Court asking it to compute their wages due from  the respondent on the basis of certain settlements said to  have been arrived at between them and the management.  The Labour Court  allowed their application in part and held that  each of  the  workman  was entitled to get  Rs.  849/-  from  the respondent company @ Rs. 20/- per month from December,  1969 to  March,  1972 and @ Rs. 12/- from March, 1970  to  March, 1972.  The claim of the workmen for Rs. 13/- per month  from February,  1971  to March, 1972 was rejected by  the  Labour Court.   The management challenged the order of  the  Labour Court in Civil Rule No,. 778 of 1972 by a writ  application. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the order of the Labour Court.  Hence this appeal. It  may  be stated here that the only  dispute  between  the management  and the workmen in the proceeding under  section 33C(2)  of  the Act was whether the employees in  the  Assam Sector   were  also  entitled  to  take  advantage  of   the settlement  between  the company and its employees  in  West Bengal.  The quantum or the rate of extra wages to which the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

workmen would have been entitled if the advantages under the settlement were found available to them was not in  dispute. In  that  view  of the matter, the High  Court  was  of  the opinion, to quote the relevant words from its judgment-               "For conferring jurisdiction on a Labour Court               under section 33C(2), it is not only necessary               that  the  workmen should be entitled  to  any               money  due  but also that there  should  be  a               dispute about the amount of that money.  It is                207               clear that there is no dispute with regard  to               the  amounts of money which have already  been               fixed  by  the  settlement.   That  being  the               position,  there  is no  question  within  the               scope  of section 33C(2) for determination  by               the Labour Court in this case." In our judgment the High Court has committed an error in  so narrowly  interpreting section 33C(2) of the Act.  The  said provision runs as follows-               "Where any workman is entitled to receive from               the employer any money or any benefit which is               capable  of being computed in terms  of  money               and  if, any question arises as to the  amount               of money due or as to the amount at which such               benefit should be computed, then the  question               may,  subject  to any rules that may  be  made               under  this  Act, be decided  by  such  Labour               Court  as may be specified in this  behalf  by               the appropriate Government." There  are two parts of the sub-section as it  stands  after its  amendment  by  Act  36 of  1964.   The  first  part  is concerned  with the money claim simpliciter and  the  second part  speaks  about  computation in terms of  money  of  any benefit  to  which the workman is  entitled.   Although  for appreciation  of the point at issue there is no  substantial difference between the two, we shall confine our  discussion to the money claim only pure and simple.  On a plain reading of  the wordings of the Statue it would be found that  where any  workman is entitled to receive from employer any  money and  if any question arises as to the amount of  money  due, then  the question may be decided by the Labour Court.   The expression "If any question arises as to the amount of money due"  embraces  within  its ambit any one  or  more  of  the following kinds of, disputes :-                (1)  Whether   there   is   any    settlement               or award as alleged?               (2)   Whether  any  workman  is  entitled   to               receive  from  the employer any money  at  all               under any settlement or an award etc?               (3)   If so,, what will be the rate or quantum               of such amount?               (4)   Whether  the  amount claimed is  due  or               not? Broadly  speaking, these will be the disputes which will  be referable to the question as to the amount of money due.  If the right to get the money on the basis of the settlement or the  award  is not established, no amount of money  will  be due.   If  it is established, then it has to be  found  out, albeit,  it  may be by mere calculation, as to what  is  the amount due.  For finding it out, is not necessary that there should be a dispute as to the amount of money due also.  The fourth  kind  of  dispute  which  we  have  indicated  above obviously and literally will be covered by the 208 phrase  "amount  of  money due." A dispute as  to  all  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

questions  or  any of them would attract the  provisions  of section  33C(2) of the Act and make the remedy available  to the workman concerned. It  is  not  necessary to elaborately  discuss  the  various authorities  of  this Court on the point.  To our  mind  the view we have expressed above is plainly and squarely covered by the principles of law enunciated by this Court in several decisions;  to wit, The Central Bank of lndia Ltd. v. P.  S. Rajagopalan etc.(1). R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court Nagpur & Ors.(2) and Sahu Minerals and  Pro- perties Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and  others. (a) Learned  counsel  for the respondent company  endeavored  to support the judgment of the High Court with reference to the provision  of  sub-section (1) of section 33C  of  the  Act. Counsel  submitted  that  if there is a dispute  as  to  any amount  due,  it  is  to  be  decided  by  the   appropriate Government  under the said provision of law and not  by  the Labour   Court  under  sub-section  (2),  which  is   mainly concerned  with  the  computation of the  amount.   Such  an argument is too obviously wrong to be accepted.  A  detailed discussion is not necessary to reject it.  The ’satisfaction of  the  appropriate Government which is spoken of  in  sub- section  (1) is their prima facie satisfaction when a  claim is made by any workman before the Government for issuance of a certificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount due.   It the appropriate Government finds that  the  amount claimed  by the workman is due and there is no such  dispute which  needs  any  adjudication  by  the  Labour  Court   in accordance with subsection (2) or the dispute raised is  not bona fide, then the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the  same in the manner as an arrears of land revenue.   The decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank Limited v. K. L.  Kharbanda(4)  does  not help the respondent  at  all  in support  of  the interpretation sought to be put  by  it  to sub--section (1) of section 33C. For  the  reasons  stated above, we allow  the  appeal  with costs,  set  aside the order of the High Court  and  restore that of the, Labour Court. S.R. Appeal allowed. (1)  [1964] 3 S.C.R. 140. (2)  [1972] 2 S.C.R. 580. (3)  A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745. (4)  [1962] 2 Suppl.  SC.R. 977. 209