Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tube Wells Corporation Ltd & Anr Vs Presiding Officer (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Labour Court in exercise of power under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot determine entitlement of retrenchment compensation. It can order to employer to pay already determined compensation.
Facts- The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 29.01.2013 whereby Labour Court has allowed application filed by respondent u/s. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The respondent No.2 joined petitioner-Corporation as Junior Engineer in the year 1982. The petitioner-Corporation came to be closed w.e.f. 30.06.2002. The closure was effected after seeking permission from Appropriate Government in in terms of Section 25O of I.D. Act. The petitioner paid retrenchment compensation to all the workers and respondent herein was paid 3 months salary considering him an employee instead of workman. The petitioner was of the opinion that respondent does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act.
The workman preferred an application u/s. 33C(2) of I.D. Act before Labour Court seeking direction to Management to pay him compensation in terms of Section 25F read with 25N of I.D. Act. The Labour Court vide impugned order dated 29.01.2013 has directed the petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs.83,360/-alongwith interest @ 8% per annum as retrenchment compensation.
