TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Labour Court constituted by the State Government. It is further not in dispute that the Labour Court before whom the employee had filed the application has not been specified by the Central Government. On the application so filed the Labour Court issued notice to the appellant-employer. The appellant appeared before the Labour Court and questioned its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on the ground that the said Court having not been specified by the Central Government under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 4. The Labour Court by its order dated 19th August, 1995 over-ruled that objection and held that its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute is not ousted. Employer aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19th August, 1995 preferred writ application which was registered as Civil Rule No. 3735 of 1995. A learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court by its judgment dated 22nd August, 1995 passed in Civil Rule No.3735 of 1995 upheld its contention and while doing so observed as follows: As the Labour Court at Dibrugarh was not specified by the appropriate Government they have no jurisdiction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... workman. The provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Standing Orders Act is a special provision incorporated only for adjudicating on claim relating to payment of subsistence allowance. Having regard to the special provision under Section 10A(2) of the Standing Orders Act, we feel that the Labour Court of Dibrugarh, although constituted by the State Government, would have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for subsistence allowance even in respect of employees under a nationalized banks. It is not specified in Section 10A(2) of the Standing Orders Act that the Labour Court constituted under the 1947 Act has to be a Labour Court constituted by an appropriate Government. It is also not stipulated that the appropriate Government has to specify' such a Labour Court for entertaining on application under Section 10A(2) of the Standing Orders Act. The only requirement for assumption of jurisdiction by a Labour Court under Section 10A(2) of the Standing Orders Act is that the Labour Court has to be one, which has been constituted under the 1947 Act and the concerned establishment must be functioning within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Labour Court. Having noted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied as the Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under S.33-C(2) of the Act. S.33-C(2) confers jurisdiction only on those Labour Courts which are specified in this behalf, i.e., such Labour Courts which are specifically designated by the State Government for the purpose of computing the money value of the benefit claimed by a workman. 9. Mr. A.K. Panda, learned Senior Counsel, however, appearing on behalf of the employee-respondent submits that in view of the explanation appended to Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court includes any Court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State and the Labour Court before which employee laid his claim has been constituted for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, it will have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the money claim of the employee. 10. Before we advert to the rival submissions it is expedient to go into the legislative history of the enactment in question. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as originally enacted did not provide for any remedy to individual employee to enforce his existing rights and only way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject 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. (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen. Explanation.--In this section Labour Court includes any court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State. 12. From a plain reading of Section 33C(2) it is evident that money due to a workman has to be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government. Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inter alia confers power to the appropriate Government for constitution of one or more Labour courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes. It also prescribes qualification for appointment as Presiding Officer of a Labour C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for compelling reasons. There does not exist any reason, much less compelling reason to adopt a construction, which renders the words as may be specified in this behalf used in Section 33C(2) of the Act as redundant. These words have to be given full meaning. These words in no uncertain terms indicate that there has to be specification by the appropriate Government that a particular court shall have jurisdiction to decide money claim under Section 33C(2) of the Act and it is that court alone which shall have the jurisdiction. Appropriate Government can specify the court or courts by general or special order in its discretion. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the Labour Court at Dibrugarh has been specified by the appropriate Government, i.e., Central Government for adjudication of the disputes under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This question in our opinion has squarely been answered by this Court in the case of Treogi Nath (Supra). True it is that rendering this decision, this Court did not consider the explanation appended to Section 33C of the Act, as the lis pertained to period earlier to amendment but in view of what we have sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly dispute pertains to subsistence allowance and the Labour Court where the workman had brought the action has been constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further the appellant bank is situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction. The workman had, though, chosen to file application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act but that in our opinion shall not denude jurisdiction to the Labour Court, if it otherwise possesses jurisdiction. Incorrect label of the application and mentioning wrong provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the Court of its jurisdiction. Relief sought for, if falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, it can not be thrown out on the ground of its erroneous label or wrong mentioning of provision. In the present case the Labour Court, Dibrugarh satisfies all the requirements to decide the dispute raised by the employee before it. 17. As the matter is pending before Labour Court since long, it shall make endeavour to finally decide the dispute within 6 months from today. Appellant as also respondent are directed to appear before the Labour Court, within four weeks from today. 18. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
