The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) order directing Allahabad Bank to pay Travelling and Dearness Allowance (TA/DA) to a retired employee acting as a Defence Assistant. The Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by presuming the existence of a right that had never been adjudicated, recognised through a settlement, or conferred by statute, thereby bypassing the foundational adjudication contemplated under Section 10 of the Act.

Clarifying that Section 33C(2) is confined to the computation or execution of pre-existing rights, the Court observed that disputes concerning a retired employee’s entitlement to TA/DA necessarily require a full-fledged adjudicatory exercise involving appreciation of evidence, interpretation of settlements, and determination of substantive rights. The Bench noted that such foundational issues go to the very genesis of the claim and fall exclusively within the adjudicatory domain of Section 10  proceedings, not the limited summary jurisdiction of computational proceedings.

Justice Shail Jain observed, “…the present case exemplifies a situation where the Labour Court has effectively assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate a disputed industrial claim under the guise of computation, thereby transgressing the statutory limits of Section 33C(2). Such an approach not only runs contrary to settled law but also undermines the carefully structured scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, which delineates distinct forums and procedures for adjudication and execution…In the absence of any prior adjudication, award, settlement, or statutory provision recognising the claimed right, the Respondent’s claim was not one of computation simpliciter, but one requiring foundational adjudication.”.

Advocate Rajat Arora appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ankit Bhadaria appeared for the respondent.

The dispute arose when R.S. Saini, a retired employee of Allahabad Bank, sought TA/DA for acting as a Defence Assistant post-retirement. While the Bank contested the legal basis of this claim after his superannuation, the CGIT proceeded to quantify the amount, eventually awarding him Rs. 16,500.

The Allahabad Bank challenged the CGIT’s 2007 findings through a Writ Petition, arguing that the claim was not maintainable. The Bank contended that in the absence of a prior adjudication recognizing the respondent’s entitlement, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The Bench focused on the jurisdictional infirmity of the lower court's approach, as it noted that the Tribunal "begged the question" by presupposing the right to claim TA/DA ipso facto based on participation in inquiries. The Court held that even if the Bank had made some payments after retirement, such acts do not constitute a binding recognition of a legal right and may have been a matter of discretion or mistake, issues that require a Section 10 reference to resolve.

The Bench noted that Respondent’s claim, necessarily required the Tribunal to undertake a primary adjudication on several foundational questions, including:

  1. Whether a retired employee can claim TA/DA for acting as a Defence Assistant;
  2. Whether such entitlement survives the cessation of the employer– employee relationship;
  3. Whether the Bipartite Settlement permits or prohibits such a claim; and
  4. Whether the Respondent’s continued participation post-retirement creates any enforceable obligation.

“Each of these questions is not merely incidental or interpretative, but goes to the very genesis of the right claimed. The determination of these issues would require a full-fledged adjudicatory exercise, involving appreciation of evidence, interpretation of settlements, and application of legal principles, functions which lie squarely within the domain of an industrial adjudication under Section 10, and not within the limited ambit of Section 33C(2). The learned Tribunal, however, appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the Respondent’s participation as a Defence Assistant ipso facto conferred upon him a right to claim TA/DA, and that the only task before it was to quantify such entitlement. This assumption effectively begs the question, for it presupposes the very right which was in dispute. By doing so, the Tribunal inverted the statutory scheme and converted what ought to have been a threshold jurisdictional inquiry into a mere computational exercise”, the Bench, thus, noted.

Accordingly, the High Court held the application before the Tribunal was not maintainable, and consequently, the findings dated March 28, 2007, were quashed for lack of jurisdiction, and the respondent’s claim was dismissed.

Cause Title: Allahabad Bank v. R.S. Saini (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4175)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar and Sourabh, Advocates.

Respondent: Ankit Bhadaria, Umesh Singh and Karishma, Advocates with respondent in person.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: