The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P4 order of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. Admittedly the application was filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for brevity “ID Act”], claiming minimum wages between 01.03.1998 to 04.10.1998.
2. Admittedly there was a dispute with respect to the employment of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that, earlier there were proceedings before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 [for brevity PW Act], which had concluded in the finding that the petitioner was a workman. The petitioner is also said to have been granted the said benefits. The said orders were produced as Exhibits P1 to P4 before the Labour Court. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have been denied employment on 05.10.1998, when a dispute was raised; which was settled by a settlement produced as Exhibit P8 before the Labour Court.
3. The petitioner contends that the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act was for the prior period and there was no dispute with respect to that. However, on a reading of Exhibit P4 it would appear that, there was a dispute raised before the Labour Court itself as to the employment of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot rely on an order passed under the PW Act to claim wages under Section 33C(2) of ID Act. From the claim petition, Exhibit P1 herein, it is clear that the petitioner claims wages, rather minimum wages, for the period March 1998 to September, 1998 and upto 4.10.1998. Exhibit P1 also indicates that the period between March, 1998 to June, 1998 was the subject matter in PWA.8/98 and that between July, 1998 to 4.10.1998 was the subject matter of PWA.10/98. Hence, the claim was filed, as declared therein, for the periods covered in PWAs 8 and 10 of 1998. It is not clear as to without an adjudication, how the respondent could have resorted to Section 33C of the ID Act.
4. On the ground that the petitioner has been granted payment of wages under the PW Act, the petitioner sought to file a claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. It is trite that Section 33C (2) cannot lead to an adjudication of any dispute.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner [(2007) 5 SCC 281] considered the provisions of U.P. ID Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 33C(1) of the ID Act. The contention that bonus comes within the definition of wages was negatived. Examining the definition of wages under the ID Act and the PW Act, it was held so:
“16. Different statutes, enacted by Parliament from time to time, although beneficial in character to the workmen, seek to achieve different purposes. Different authorities have been prescribed for enforcing the provisions of the respective statutes. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is one of them.
17. In view of the fact that diverse authorities exercise jurisdiction which may be overlapping to some extent, the courts while interpreting the provisions of the statutes must interpret them in such a manner so as to give effect thereto”.
6. State of U.P. v. Brijpal Singh [2005) 8 SCC 58] held so:
“13. Thus, it is clear from the principle enunciated in the above decisions that the appropriate forum where question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding before a forum to whom a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. Therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum, the respondent workman cannot ask the Labour Court in an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to compute his wages”.
7. The Labour Court refused to consider the question of whether the petitioner is a 'workman' or not. A person claiming under Section 33C of the ID Act could do so only on a prior adjudication as to his status of workman and the claim raised having been settled in such an adjudication or on the basis of a pre-existing benefit or right. In the present case, the claim is based on an order in a case filed under the PW Act. The Labour Court, on a reading of Exhibit P4 did not reject the status of the petitioner as a workman. What was found by the Labour Court was that the claim under Section 33C(2) is not maintainable for reason of the petitioner having not established his status as a workman in a properly instituted proceeding. The Labour Court, hence, declined to entertain the petition for reason of the Labour Court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues that arose; in the confined jurisdiction conferred under Section 33C(2). This Court is of the opinion that the said claim of the petitioner cannot be settled under Section 33C(2).
8. The definition of 'employed person' in the PW Act and 'workman' in the ID Act cannot be said to be similar. An employed person entitled to make a claim under the PW Act cannot strictly come within the definition of a 'workman' under th ID Act. The PW Act also prescribed specific methods by which the amounts granted in the claim under the said Act can be recovered. Sections 15(4), 17-A and 20 are the measures provided for recovery under the PW Act. The claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is not sustainable. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with Exhibit P4.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )