Holding

Section 33C(2) proceedings are execution proceedings that require a pre‑existing adjudicated right; in the absence of such adjudication and given the appellants were managers not authorized for overtime, the application was not maintainable.

Summary

The appellants, who were managers of a canteen in a sugar mill, claimed overtime wages and filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court allowed the claim on the basis of punch‑card records, but the High Court set aside the award, holding that Section 33C(2) is an execution proceeding that requires a pre‑existing adjudicated right and that the claimants were not workmen within the Act’s jurisdiction. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that no adjudication of the right existed, the reliance on documentary evidence alone was insufficient, the appellants were prima‑facie managers, and the statutory right under Section 59 of the Factories Act could not be invoked without authorized overtime slips. Consequently, the application under Section 33C(2) was held non‑maintainable and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The nature and maintainability of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether a pre‑existing right can arise from a statutory provision such as Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 for overtime wages.
Whether the appellants qualify as "workmen" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The sufficiency of documentary evidence (punch‑cards) without oral testimony in Section 33C(2) proceedings.
The applicability of an award in a similar case (Jayavelu) to other similarly placed employees.

Legislation cited

Factories Act, 1948s. 59
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 33C(1), s. 33C(2)

Subjects

Industrial Disputes ActSection 33C(2)Overtime wagesFactories ActExecution proceedingsWorkmen vs managerDocumentary evidencePre‑existing right

Judgment

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1239

D.KRISHNAN & ANR. A
v.
SPECIAL OFFICER, VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR
MILL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.3619 of 2008)
MAY 16, 2008 B
•
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 33 C(2) - Applicability
of - Held: Proceedings u/s 33 C(2) are in nature of execution c
proceedings - Such proceedings presupposes some adjudi-
cation. leading to determination of right, which has to be en-
forced - On facts, application uls 33 C(2) filed for claiming
overtime wages - There was no adjudication - Workman re-
lied on documentary evidence consisting of punch time cards
D
and the same not supported by oral evidence by workmen -
Claimants were prima-facie, Managers, thus, Labour Court
had no jurisdiction in the matter - Claim u/s. 59 of Factories
Act also not tenable as claimants were not authorized to work
overtime by overtime slip - More so, order granting benefit of
overtime wages to identically placed employee not applicable E
- Thus, application uls 33 C(2) not maintainable - Factories
Act, 1948 - s. 59.
Appellants were appointed with the respondent's
mill. They were put in charge of the employees canteen F
for different periods. Appellant claimed overtime wages
for certain period as they had put in overtime work. An-
other employee J also raised a similar claim and the
Labour Court allowed the same. However, the Labour
Court did not give benefit to the appellants as given to J,
G
even though it had given an assurance to make payment.
Aggrieved, appellants filed application u/s. 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for claiming overtime wages.
The Labour Court allowed the application. It held that

1239 H
1240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A though an application u/s 33 C(2) of the Act was in the .... ,_
nature of an execution and a claim could not be deter-
mined thereunder, but could be determined u/s. 59 of the
.
Ji,;
Factories Act 1948 which visualized payment of overtime
wages; that the documents on reco"rd had proved the per-
B formance of overtime work; and that the award in the case
of J had become final. Respondent-Management filed writ
petition. High Court upheld the award of the Labour Court. • \8

In writ appeal, the High Court held that the reliance on
'••
'.
documentary evidence by the Labour Court was not ten- '11
c able; that the punch time cards did not constitute proof
as the burden of proof rested on the person claiming over-
time; that it was the specific stand of the respondent that
the workmen had never been authorized by anybody to
work overtime; that proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the ·Act
being in the nature of execution proceedings, could only
D
be effective in case of a pre-existing right and as the claim
of the respondent workmen was disputed, this was not a
\
,.
matter for decision under the said provision. The Writ ap-
to
peal was allowed and the order of the Single Judge and )

the award of the Labour Court were quashed. Hence the <
E present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court ,.,,

HELD: 1.1. The fact that proceedings under section
)-
33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are in the na-
F ture of execution proceedings is in no doubt, and such '

proceedings presuppose some adjudication leading to
the determination of a right, which has to be enforced.
Concededly there has been no such adjudication in the
instant case. It will be seen that the reliance of the appel-
G !ant-workmen is exclusively on documentary evidence
placed on record which consisted primarily of the punch ..
time cards and the representations that had been filed from
time to time before the respondents. [Para 5] [1246-d,e]
1.2 The claim by the appellants has been disputed
H
D.KRISHNAN & ANR. v. SPECIAL OFF. 1241
VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL

by the respondents from the beginning and that the docu- A
ments filed by the appellants themselves suggest that they
were unsure of their own status. The representations filed
as additional documents have l:>t~en perused. A perusal
of the letter from SKP-Special Officer shows that the first
appellant was being posted as a Canteen Manager. The s
subsequent letters were all written by the first appellant
identifying his post as that of Manager of the canteen and
in the body of the last letter, a specific plea was made that
amongst the several duties entrusted to him, he had to
instruct 4 workers to come in the morning, to prepare C
breakfast and a complaint that on one particular day, a
Clerk working under him had refused to follow his orders.
Similar letters Vfere written by the second appellant and
they too are on the record as additional documents. There-
fore, in the light of the categorical statements time and D
again in the very documents relied upon by the appel-
lants in support of their case, that they were, prima-facie,
Managers and it would, therefore, be beyorid the jurisdic-
tion of the Labour Court to determine their status in pro-
ceedings u/s. 33 C(2) of the Act. [Para 5] [1247-A-E]
E
1.3 The ·submission by the appellants that a pre-ex-
isting right could also emanate from a statute, in this case
from s. 59 of the Factories Act, which provided for the
payment of overtime wages and in this view of the matter,
all that the Labour Court was called upon to do was to F
make a calculation of the amounts due to the appellants,
cannot be accepted. The facts of the case are, however,
not as clear cut and dried, as contended. The Division
Bench observed that though section 59 of the Factories
Act undoubtedly provides for extra payment as overtime G
wages, but according' to Rule 788 of the Tamil Nadu Fac-
tories Rule, 1950, only an employee authorized to work
overtime by an overtime slip would be entitled to claim an
overtime allowance. The specific case of the respondent-
Management is that no such slips had ever.been issued.
H
,_
1242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A Additionally, in the absence of any supporting oral evi-
...
F
dence by the workmen which would also result ii;i their
cross-examination, a mere reliance on the documents filed
by them is insufficient for determining the factual basis of
the issues involved, in proceedings under Section 33-C(2)
B of the Act. [Para' 7] [1249-B-F]
1.4 The submission that an order made by a Court in
case of workman J was required to be made applicable
to all those similarly circumstanced and as J, who was
identically placed, had been granted the benefit of over- ·,
c time wages by the Labour Court, the appellants too were
' · entitled to the same relief can not be accepted on account
·of the lack of particulars with respect to J's matter. Thus,
it is not possible to evaluate the matter as being identical
on facts. [Para 8) [1249-G,H, 1250-A] !;
'\
D
Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. vs.
"
Rameshwar & Ors. (1968) 1 SCR 140; Municipal Corporation r

of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak & Anr. (1995) 1 SCC :235 and State •
of U.P. & ,4.nr. vs. Brijpal Singh (2005) 8 SCC 58; Damodar.
Valley Corporation vs. Workmen (1974) 3 SCC 57; State of
E Kamataka & Ors. vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 - referred ..
to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3619 \,.
'•/'
of 2008 '
"' I~ -

F From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.03.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 897
& 898 of 2004 '
/,

Colin Gonsalves, Puja Sharma, Jyoti Mendiratta and I.ii
,,.,.

Aagney Sail for the Appellants. fl
Q .~~

Dayan Krishnan, Nikhil Nayyar, Gautam Narayan and ..
$amrat Singh for the Respondents.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Leave granted.
..
H 2. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed to the respon-
t
D.KRISHNAN & ANR. v. SPECIAL OFF. 1243
VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

dent mill vide orders dated 4th April 1977 and 191h February A
1979 respectively. Both were promoted to various posts in the
course of their service and appellant No.2 was put in charge of
the employees canteen in the year 1991 whereas appellant No.1
given the same charge in February 1996. The appellants claimed
that as they had put in overtime work for a specific number of B
hours each day, they were entitled to overtime wages for the
said period. They repeatedly made representations to the
Labour Welfare Officer and to the employers claiming payment,
and though an assurance was held out to them that as a similar
claim by another employee, one Jayavelu, was pending before c
the Labour Court, the decision in that case would also be made
applicable to their case. It appears that the Labour Court, in the
meanwhile, rendered its decision in favour of Jayavelu and he
was ordered to be paid his overtime wages which were in fact
defrayed. Frustrated in their efforts to get the benefits given to
0
Jayavelu, the appellants filed an application under section 33
C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the
"Act") making a claim for overtime wages. The respondent sub-
mitted its counter and took a specific plea that the appellants
had not been directed to do any overtime work and as a matter
of fact they had never done so. It was also pleaded that E
Jayavelu's case had no similarity vis-a-vis the case of the ap-
pellants and that proceedings under section 33 C(2) being in
the nature of execution proceedings, the Labour Court could
not have, under this jurisdiction, determined the rights of the
parties, as was required in the present case. In the written sub- F
missions filed on behalf of the respondents, a specific plea was
also taken that the appellants were, in fact, Managers and not
workmen as the salary that they were drawing was more than
the limit prescribed under section 2(a) of the Act and the Labour
Court for this additional reason as well, had no jurisdiction in G
the matter. The Labour Court in its award dated 24th May 2002
observed that only documentary evidence had been submitted
by the parties and on an examination of the various documents
on record, in particular the time cards produced by the appel-
lants and the various representations made by them calling for H
1244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A overtime wages, held that the appellants had indeed worked T
I-
overtime and were entitled to payment accordingly. The plea of
the respondent Management that the appellants were, Manag-
ers and not workmen was repelled by observing that as the
plea had not been taken in the written statement and only in the
B written submissions, it did not warrant acceptance. The Court
also held that though an application under section 33 C(2) of
the Act was in the nature of an execution and a determination of
a claim could not be made thereunder, but as section 59 of the
Factories Act 1948 provided for the payment of overtime wages
c and as the documents on record had proved the performance
of overtime work, the behaviour of the Management was "rep-
rehensible and was liable to be punished", more particularly, as
the award in the case of Jayavelu had become final and had not
been challenged. The application was accordingly allowed. The
respondent Management thereupon challenged the award in
D
the Madras High Court. The High Court in its judgment dated
81h December 2003, dismissed the writ petition thereby con-
firming the award of the Labour Court. The judgment of the
learned Single Judge was challenged by way of a writ appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court in
E its impugned judgment dated 2nd March 2005, observed that
..,
the reliance of the Labour Court on documentary evidence alone,
and that too in a case of claim of overtime wages, was not ten-
able and that it was unusual on the part of the respondents (ap-
pellants herein), being workmen not to enter the witness box to ..
F substantiate their claim. The Division Bench also held that the
punch time cards which formed the basis of their case did not
constitute sufficient proof, as the burden of proof in such a mat-
ter rested on the person claiming overtime. The Division Benell'
also observed that the specific stand of the respondent was
G that the workmen had never been authorized by anybody to work
overtime and for this additional reason, the claim must fail. The
Court finally concluded that in the light of the settled position of
•
law, proceedings under section 33 C(2) of the Act could only
be effective in case of a pre-existing right and as the claim of
H the respondent workmen was disputed, this was not a matter
D.KRISHNAN &ANR. v. SPECIAL OFF. 1245
VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

for decision under this provision. The writ appeal was accord- A
ingly allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
the award of the Labour Court were quashed. The present ap-
peal has been filed against this order of the High Court.
3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel for the
workmen-appellants, has submitted that though proceedings 8
under Section 33 C(2) of the Act were indeed in the nature of
... execution proceedings but this provision also visualized some
enquiry, be it a casual one, and as the Labour Court and the
learned Single Judge of the High Court had taken a particular
view on the evidence, the Division Bench ought to have stayed C
its hands and not taken a different view. It has been pleaded
that there was a difference between the terminology of Sec-
tions 33 C(1) and section 33 C(2) inasmuch as section 33 C(1)
dealt with money due to a workman from an employer under a
settlement or award etc., whereas section 33 C(2) was much D
wider in its application and visualized an entitlement with re-
spect to money even if a pre-existing right was created by a
Statute and as in the present case, section 59 of the Factories
Act visualized payment of overtime wages, a simple enquiry
under section 33 C(2) was fully justified. In this connection, the E
learned counsel has placed reliance on Chief Mining Engineer
East India Coal Co.Ltd. vs. Rameshwar & Ors. (1968) 1 SCR
140. He has also pleaded, that even assuming for a moment,
that there was some evidence to raise a suspicion that the ap-
pellants were Managers and not workmen, the dominant pur- F
pose of their employment had to be seen and the dominant pur-
pose being that of workmen, even if they were delegated some
minor managerial activities, would not change the nature of their
appointment. It was also submitted that all the judgments cited
by the Division Bench pertained to cases where the workmen G
claimed "equal pay for equal work" and which did involve the
determination of a right, but in the present case, keeping in view
the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act, and the domi-
nant purpose of the employment of the appellants, the afore-
said judgments were not applicable.
H
1246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A 4. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, the learned counsel for the respon-
dents has, however, disputed the claim of the appellants and
has referred to the counter affidavit and the written submissions
filed before the Labour Court. It has been contended that in or-
der to raise a claim for overtime wages, it was essential that
B the overtime woi'k should be authorized by a competent author-
ity and no such authorization being on record, the claim under
section 59 of the Factories Act was not tenable. It has also been
pleaded that the proceedings under section 33 C(2) were in
the nature of execution proceedings and no determination of a
c right could be made and for this submission the learned coun-
sel has placed reliance on Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Ganesh Razak & Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235 and State of U.P. &
Anr. Vs. Brijpal Singh (2005) 8 SCC 58.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
D learned counsel for the parties. The fact that proceedings un-
der Section 33 C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings
is irr no doubt, and such proceedings presuppose some adju-
dication leading to the determination of a right, which has to be
enforced. Concededly there has been no such adjudication in
E the p~esent case. It will be seen that the reliance of the appel-
lant-workmen is exclusively on documentary evidence placed
on record which consisted primarily of the punch time cards
and the representations that had been filed from time to time
before the respondents. It is also true that the claim raised by
F the appellants had been hotly disputed by the respondents. The
question that arises in this situation is whether reliance only on
the documentary evidence was sufficient to prove the case. We
are of the opinion that the reference to Municipal Corporation's
case (supra) is completely misplaced as in that matter, the fact
G that different categories of workers were doing identical kind of
work was virtually admitted but different scales of pay were nev-
ertheless being·paid to them. It is also relevant that oral evi-
dence had been adduced by the workmen to supplement the
documentary evidence and it was in that situation that the Court
felt that an application under section 33 C(2) was maintainable.
H

r
D.KRISHNAN & ANR. v. SPECIAL OFF. 1247
VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
~ We find that the claim by the appellants herein has been dis- A
puted from the beginning and that the documents filed by the
appellants themselves suggest that they were unsure of their
own status. We have also perused the representations which
have been filed as additional documents. A perusal of the letter
dated 10th February 1996 from S.Karuthiah Pandian, Special B
Officer shows that the appellant D.Krishnan was being posted
as a Canteen Manager. The subsequent letters dated 20th May
1996, 20th January 1997, 20th February 1997, 15th April 1998
and 6th August 1998 were all written by the appellant D.Krishnan
identifying his post as that of Manager of the canteen and in the c
body of the last letter, a specific plea has been made that
amongst the several duties entrusted to him, he had to instruct
4 workers to come in the morning, to prepare breakfast and a
complaint that on one particular day, one C. Uttharakumar, a
Clerk working under him had refused to follow his orders. We
.. also find similar letters written by the second appellant, K.
D
Shanmugam and they :oo are on the record as additional docu-
ments. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the light of the
categorical statements time and again in the very documents
relied upon by the appellants in support of their case, that they
were, prima-facie, Managers and it would, therefore, be beyond E
the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to determine their status in
proceedings under Section 33 C(2) of the Act.
6. In this view of the matter, we find that the judgment re-
ported in Municipal Corporation's case (supra) was clearly ap- F
plicable to the facts of the present case.· In this case, it was
observed that
"In these matters, the claim of the respondent-workmen
who were aH daily-rated/causal workers, to be paid wages
at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been G
.. earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the
employer without which the stage for computation of that
~. benefit could not reach. The workmen's claim of doing
the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid
wages at the same rate as the regular workmen on the H
1248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 8 S.C.R.

. I
A principle of "equal pay for equal work" being disputed, ~

without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in
acceptance of their claim to this effect, there could be no ~-
.. -
occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to
attract Section 33-C(2). The mere fact that some other
workmen are alleged to have made a similar claim by
.j/;J;
..
B :f
filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is r.
indicative of the need for adjudication of the claim of, • 1,

entitlement to the benefit before computation of such a
benefit could be sought. Respondents' claim is not based ....
c on a prior adjudication made in the writ petitions filed by
some other workmen upholding a similar claim which could
be relied on as an adjudication enuring to the benefit of
these respondents as well. The writ petitions by some ft
other workmen to which some reference was casually
made, particulars of which are not available in these
o.
matters, have, therefore, no relevance for the present
purpose. It must, therefore, be held that the Labour Court
as well as the High Court were in error in treating as ·f. -

maintainable the applications made under Section 33-
C(2) of the Act by these respondents. ~

E it;"

In Brijpal Singh's case (supra), this is what the Court had
to say: \~,1
-':r _;e.::;;
"It is well settled that the workman can proceed under ;, ' -

'"
t ·~{· .~~tr
Section 33-C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on I•
F a complaint under Section 33-A or on a reference under
Section 10 that the order of discharge or dismissal was . )'··1
not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated I

'

G
the workman. This Court in the case of Punjab Beverages
(P) Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand held that a proceeding under
Section 33-C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution
•
proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the r
amount of money due to a workman from the employer, or, .
. ,.

H
if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable
of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to
compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further,
t
D.KRISHNAN & ANR. v. SPECIAL OFF. 1249
VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL (HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

this Court held that the right to the money which is sought A
to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to. be
computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already
adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the
course of and in relation to the relationship between the
l
industrial workman, and his employer." . 1 B
' . '

7. Mr. Gonsalves, has, however urged that a pre-existing
right could also emanate from a statute, in this case from Sec-
tion 59 of the Factories Act, which provided for the payment of
overtime wages and in this view of the matter, all that the Labour
Court was called upon to do was to make a calculation of the C
amounts due to the appellants. The facts of the case are, how-
ever, not as clear cut and dried, as has been contended. The
Division Bench has observed that though section 59 of the Fac-
tories Act undoubtedly provided for extra payment as overtime

, wages, but according to Rule 788 of the Tamil Nadu Factories D
Rule, 1950, only an employee authorized to work overtime by
an overtime slip would be entitled to claim an overtime allow-
ance. The specific case of the respondent-Management, which
has not been contested by the appellants even during the course
of the arguments before us, is that no such slips had ever been E
issued. Additionally, we are of the opinion that in the absence
of any supporting oral evidence by the workmen which would
also result in their cross-examination, a mere reliance on the
documents filed by them is insufficient for determining the fac-
•
tual basis of the issues involved, in proceedings under Section F
33-C(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, Mr. Gonsalves's
argument based on Rameshwar's case (supra) or the scope
and ambit of Section 33 C(1) vis-a-vis Section 33 C(2), is also
unacceptable.
8. Mr. Gonsalves has finally submitted that in the light of G
., the judgment of this Court in Damodar Valley Corporation vs.
Workmen (1974) 3 SCC 57 and State ofKarnataka & Ors. vs.
C.Lalitha (2006) 2 sec 747, an order made by a Court was
required to be made applicable to all those similarly circum-
stanced and as Jayavelu, who was identkally placed, had been H
1250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S. C.R.

A granted the benefit of overtime wages by the Labour Court, the
appellants too were entitled to the same relief. This submis-
sion is however not acceptable on account of the lack of par-
ticulars with respect to Jayavelu's matter. It is, thus, not pos-
sible to evaluate the matter as being identical on f9cts. We,
B thus, find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed,
with no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeal dismissed

•