UNION OF INDIAversusGURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 420
- Decided
- 21 April 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A Labour Court lacks power to adjudicate fresh claims under Section 33-C(ii), but in this case the Supreme Court did not interfere with the Labour Court's order, directing that its judgment not be treated as precedent.
Summary
The respondent, who had not produced documentary proof of his date of birth, was assessed by a medical board to be about 25 years old and was allowed to retire in 1984 instead of 1980. He filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking all retirement benefits, and the Labour Court granted relief. The Union of India challenged this order; the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the challenge, and a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. The Court examined the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under Section 33-C(ii), reiterating that they cannot adjudicate fresh claims or give directions, but can only interpret awards. While agreeing with that principle, the Court held that the facts of this case did not merit interference and directed that the High Court and Labour Court judgments should not be treated as precedent. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with respect to adjudicating fresh claims?
- Whether the Labour Court's order granting retirement benefits to the respondent can be set aside by the High Court or the Supreme Court?
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 33-C(ii)
Subjects
Judgment
T
A UNION OF INDIA
v.
GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR.
APRIL 21, 1997
B (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
S. 33-C(ii)-Jurisdiction of Labour Court//11dustlial Court-Devoid of
C power a11d jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claim or to give directions 011
that basis-It can at best interpret the award and work out wages payable to
workme11 i11 temu of the award-flowever, in view of the facts and cir-
cumstances of the present case the decision of the Labour Cowt as upheld
by the High Cowt not inte1fered with-But the judgment of the Labour Court
and High Court i11 this case 11ot to be treated as precedent for any future
D case-It is 1101 co11sistent with the law laid down by Supreme Court.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak &Anr., [1995] 1 SCC
235, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
E No. 9652 of 1997.
From the Judgement and Order dated 10.7.96 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 9647 of 1996.
F Dr. AM. Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General, S. Wasim Quadri and
Arving Kr. Sharma for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
G The respondent, when he entered into service did not place any
documentary evidence like school leaving certificate etc. in support of his
date of birth. Consequently, his case came to be referred to the Medical
Board. Before the Medical Board, the respondent stated that his age was
20 years, but the Board on the basis his appearance and other features was
H of the opinion that he was around 25 years. He was due to retire from
890
U.O.l. v. GU~ SINGH 891
service on November 30, 1980. But he was allowed to retire on 30.11.84. A
On reference, the Railway Board gave the ex post facto sanction and
directed the petitioner to retire him. w.e.f. 30.11.84 and retain him in
service from l.12.80 to 30. ll.84 after giving him re-employment on usual
terms and conditions. The respondent feeling aggrieved, filed application
before Labour Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 claiming all retiral benefits; the Labour Court granted him reliefs
B
prayed for. The petitioners challenged the order of the Labour Court in
W.P. No. 9647/96, which was dismissed by the High Court in limine on
10.7.1996. Thus, this special leave petition.
The power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Court C
under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were dealt with
by this Court in Municipal Cmporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr.,
[1995] 1 SCC 235. It was held that the Labour Court is devoid of power
and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claim or to give directions on that
basis. The Labour Court at best has power to interpret the award and then
work out the wages payable to the workmen in terms of the award etc. Shri D
Singhvi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner
contends that in view of the above decision, the view taken by the Labour
Court is not correct in law. We find some force in the contention raised
by the learned counsel. However, in view of the law already by this Court
in the above judgment, we think that on the facts and circumstances, this E
case does not warrant interference. However, it is directed that the judg-
ment of the High Court or Labour Court should not be treated as prece-
dent for any future cases as it is not consistent with the law laid by this
Court.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. F
G.N. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.