Union of India Vs. Gurbachan Singh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9652 of 1997
(CC – 3846/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.1996 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P.No. 9647 of 1996)
(CC – 3846/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.1996 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P.No. 9647 of 1996)
Petitioner: Union of India
Respondent: Gurbachan Singh & Anr.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9652 of 1997
(CC – 3846/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.1996 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P.No. 9647 of 1996)
(CC – 3846/97)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.1996 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P.No. 9647 of 1996)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 1997
Appearances:
Dr. A.M.Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. S. Wasim Qadri and Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Advocates with him for the Petitioner.
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 53-C (ii) – Power and Jurisdiction of Labour Court/Industrial Court – Relying upon case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. JT 1994 (7) SC 476 the Court held that Labour Court is devoid of power and Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claims and that it can interpret award and work out wages – However under the facts and circumstances of case, the Court declined to interfere with direction that the Judgments of High Court or Labour Court should not be treated as precedents.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 53-C (ii) – Power and Jurisdiction of Labour Court/Industrial Court – Relying upon case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. JT 1994 (7) SC 476 the Court held that Labour Court is devoid of power and Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claims and that it can interpret award and work out wages – However under the facts and circumstances of case, the Court declined to interfere with direction that the Judgments of High Court or Labour Court should not be treated as precedents.
Cases Reffered:
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. JT 1994 (7) SC 476 (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. 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 of the opinion that he was around 25 years. He was due to retire from service on November 30, 1980. But he was allowed to retire on 30.11.84. 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 1.12.80 to 30.11.84 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 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.
3. The power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were dealt with by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. JT 1994 (7) SC 476 = ((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 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 settled by this Court in the above judgment, we think that on the facts and circumstances, this case does not warrant interference. However, it is directed that the judgment of the High Court or Labour Court should not be treated as precedent for any future cases as it is not consistent with the law laid by this Court.
4. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Delay condoned.
2. 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 of the opinion that he was around 25 years. He was due to retire from service on November 30, 1980. But he was allowed to retire on 30.11.84. 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 1.12.80 to 30.11.84 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 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.
3. The power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were dealt with by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. JT 1994 (7) SC 476 = ((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 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 settled by this Court in the above judgment, we think that on the facts and circumstances, this case does not warrant interference. However, it is directed that the judgment of the High Court or Labour Court should not be treated as precedent for any future cases as it is not consistent with the law laid by this Court.
4. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
