Management of KSRTC Vs Sri K. Shivaram (Karnataka High Court)
Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act refers to any amount due to workman. Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act (I.D. Act) speaks of any amount due to workman under the settlement or award under the provision of Chapter 5-A or 5-B of the I.D. Act.
The respondent claimed that he was entitled to claim the amount due to the injuries suffered by him during the course of employment. Therefore his claim was under the Act, 1923. In such event the claim lies before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner and not before the Labour Court.
The larger bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s case referred to supra in this regard held as follows:
“12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court’s power under Section 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.
(Emphasis supplied)
Similarly in para No.8 of the judgment in State of U.P. and Another Vs Brijpal Singh’s case raised the point whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim under Section 33C(2) of the I.D Act which is not preceded by an award or settlement and considered the same.
In para-13 of the judgment it was held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the Workman under Section 33C (2) of the I.D Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum. The same view is reiterated in other judgments.
Reading of the judgment in Punjab National Bank Ltd’s case relied by the learned Counsel for the respondent shows that the application in the said case was preceded by an award. Therefore the said judgment cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case.
In view of the specific forum provided under the Act, 1923, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Though the Workman suffered certain disability, the question was due to such disability, whether there was loss of earning. Admittedly after the accident, the respondent received remuneration in the pay scale of drivers. Therefore whether he was entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of earning or earning capacity was a matter of adjudication.
Similarly in view of he not performing the work as a driver and assignment of lighter work to him, whether he was entitled to silver medal allowance was a matter of adjudication. Therefore that could have been subject matter of a dispute under the I.D Act. Without such adjudication, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, the respondent could not have maintained the petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court committed error in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. The award is liable to be set aside. Therefore the petition is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
