Court Always Has A Discretion Whether To Grant Interest Or Not U/S 33C(2) Of Industrial Disputes Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court observed that the Court always has a discretion whether to grant interest or not under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA).

The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed against the Judgment of the Labour Court, Mumbai, which rejected an Application for recovery of money under Section 33C(2) of IDA.

A Single Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla held, “… the claims which have been sought in the Application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they are inclusive of interest and which is impermissible in law, as the Court always has a discretion whether to grant interest or not.”

Advocate Vinay Menon appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Vijay P. Vaidya appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner joined the Respondent company and his duties pertained to all accounts work, wages work, and costing work, collection of all the cheques, etc. His service conditions were changed by the Respondents with effect from March 10, 2009 vide transfer communication, transferring him from Mumbai to New Delhi. The Petitioner claimed that such a transfer was illegally done without following the necessary mandate of Item 9-A of Schedule IV of the IDA. He, therefore, filed a Complaint and the Industrial Court allowed the same.

It was declared that the Respondents engaged in an unfair labour practice and resultantly, the Transfer Orders were quashed and set aside. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s Advocate sent a notice to the Respondents, asking them to reimburse all the payments due to him that were illegally deducted owing to the wrongful restructuring of his salary. The Petitioner addressed a letter to the company to redress the grievances and reimburse him with the outstanding amounts. He also filed an Application under Section 33C(2) of IDA for recovery of Rs. 46,07,479/-. The Labour Court rejected his Application and hence, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above regard, noted, “… the Petitioner’s claim for medical reimbursement is contrary to the admission of the Petitioner in cross examination that there was nothing in the contract of employment that the Petitioner would be entitled for medical reimbursement. Thus, the claim has been held to be untenable in law.”

The Court further said that the Petitioner is not covered under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and has in fact, admitted in his cross examination that his salary is more than Rs. 20,009/- and thus, not covered under the said Act.

“The Labour Court has thus, rightly considered the claims of the Petitioner and has found no merit in such claims. This apart from there being no relief for these claims in the original Complaint before the Industrial Court being Complaint (ULP) No. 212 of 2019”, it added.

The Court also did not find any merit in the submission on behalf of the Petitioner that he is entitled to seek relief of recovery of amount in Application under Section 33 C(2) of IDA without seeking such relief in the Original Claimant before the Industrial Court, on the ground that the Order of the Industrial Court directed the Respondent to cease and desist from unfair legal practice and this direction itself would have given rise to the claim.

“I find that the Labour Court has correctly interpreted the said Order of the Industrial Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan (supra), relied upon by the Petitioner is accordingly inapplicable”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala v. Casby Logistics Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:3680)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Vinay Menon, Kirti Shetty, and Kishorekumar Shetty.

Respondents: Advocates Vijay P. Vaidya, Shraddha Chavan, and Mahendra Agvekar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment