Labour Court's Jurisdiction U/s. 33(c)(2) Of Industrial Disputes Act Is Limited To Enforcing Pre-Existing Rights: Gujarat HC
Petitioner had been employed by the respondent from February 2002 until his termination in December 2013. He contested the termination before the Labour Court, which partially upheld his claim.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that claims for additional wages, bonus, rent, and similar benefits were not maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as there was no pre-existing right established for these claims. It emphasized that Labour Courts do not have the authority to adjudicate fresh claims under Section 33(C)(2), as their role is akin to that of an executing court.
The petitioner had been employed by the respondent from February 2002 until his termination in December 2013. He contested the termination before the Labour Court, which partially upheld his claim.
The court had directed the respondent to pay the petitioner 25% of his wages for the period between May 31, 2014, and May 31, 2016, along with other benefits. Subsequently, he filed a recovery application before the Anand Labour Court, seeking an amount of Rs. 3,03,750. This amount covered various claims, including back wages, bonus, holiday wages, salary increments, and rent. However, the Labour Court rejected the application on the grounds that there was no pre-existing right to these benefits.
A Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker said, “As there was no any pre-existing right established by the present petitioner, this Court is of the view that no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner.”
Advocate UT Mishra appeared for the Petitioner.
The Court first analyzed the nature of a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It reiterated that this provision is intended for enforcing pre-existing rights and entitlements, rather than adjudicating new claims. Drawing from the judgment of the Apex Court in Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner (2022), the Court noted that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under this section is comparable to that of an executing court, which cannot determine new claims or entitlements.
The Court further observed that there was no specific award or order from the Labour Court directing respondent to pay the additional wages, bonus, rent, or other benefits claimed. The claims made were found to be beyond the scope of the original order issued by the Labour Court, Anand. Since there was no pre-existing right to the amounts claimed, the Court concluded that the Labour Court had rightly rejected the recovery application.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition and upheld the Labour Court's decision to reject the recovery application.
Cause Title: Jayanti Ishwarbhai Parmar v. Sheth Shri Sabbir Mohammed Zubair, [2025:GUJHC:2680]
