Narrow Down Scope Of Enquiry In Applications Filed U/S.33-C(2) Of Industrial Dispute Act: Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines

The Petitioner, a workman, sought a direction to the respondents to comply with the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal) and to grant all consequential reliefs. Later, by way of an amendment, the petitioner sought a direction against the respondent LIC to pay wages from August 16, 2001 to February 4, 2019 as directed in the award passed by the Tribunal.

The Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held, “In applications/ petitions filed under Section 33- C(2) of the Act, 1947, claiming wages or other monetary benefits under the binding award or settlement, after satisfying itself that there cannot be any dispute relating to maintainability of a petition under Section 33-C(2) of Act, 1947, Tribunal or the Labour Court may adopt the following measures to narrow down the scope of enquiry:

(a) Ascertain as to whether the respondent has raised a plea of compliance of the award or settlement and if so, whether materials are placed to accept the plea of compliance of the terms of the award or settlement.”

Senior Advocate Puttige R Ramesh represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate S N Murthy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The challenge to the award of reinstatement by the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) was unsuccessful. An appeal filed by LIC, against the said aforementioned order was dismissed. In the workman’s contempt petition, noticing the fact that a false affidavit was filed by the respondent, stating that the award of reinstatement was complied with, the Court did not accept the same. The Petitioner workman was reinstated, and the contempt proceeding was dropped. The petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on July 31, 2025. The order of the Tribunal was not fully implemented since the wages payable from August 16, 2001 (the date of the award) till February 18, 2019 (the date when the workman was reinstated) were not paid.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the award for reinstatement in favor of the workman was passed in 2001, and attained finality in 2017, after the dismissal of the Civil Appeal by the Apex Court. The Petitioner/workman was reinstated almost a year and a half after dismissal of the appeal by the Apex Court.

“Ordinarily, the petitioner in whose favour the award is passed has to take recourse under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947. The party in whose favour the award is passed cannot straight away knock on the doors of this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench stated while also adding, “However, it is also a well-settled position of law that availability of a statutory remedy by itself will not preclude the courts from exercising its jurisdiction in appropriate cases.”

The Bench was of the view that the LIC, being a Corporation created under a Statute where the State is a major stakeholder, was under an obligation to pay the wages payable to the petitioner, if not, to the satisfaction of the petitioner, at least as per its calculation and bona fide understanding of the award. “Unfortunately, that is not done so far, even after a lapse of almost 8 years, since the award has attained finality”, it said. The Bench held that the petitioner had made out a case to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, despite a remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947. It was further held that, despite the remedy under Section 33-C(2), it was not fair on the part of the Court to direct the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for an adjudication under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947.

The Bench made it clear that the petitioner was reinstated to the post of a temporary employee, and so he was not entitled to any higher wages payable to the permanent employee. The Corporation was thus directed to pay wages to the petitioner from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement. Interest was also added to the arrears of wages. The Court concluded the matter by enumerating the measures to be adopted to narrow down the scope of enquiry in applications/ petitions filed under Section 33- C(2).

The Bench held, “If no such plea of compliance of the award or settlement is raised, or even if such plea is raised and no material is placed to accept such a plea relating to compliance, then the Tribunal or the Labour Court may direct the respondent bound by the award or settlement to come out with the calculation of the monetary benefits payable in terms of award or settlement, along with supporting documents justifying such calculations.”

“After ascertaining the undisputed claim, the Tribunal or the Labour Court in appropriate cases, may also direct compliance/satisfaction of such undisputed claim by way interim measure as a condition precedent to contest the disputed claim and thereafter, has to pass appropriate orders on the disputed claim”, it held while also stating, “In all proceedings under Section 33C(2) of Act of 1947, it may not be necessary to conduct a trial, and wherever the dispute can be adjudicated based on undisputed documentary evidence, the Tribunal or Labour Court shall endeavour to decide the application without holding a trial.”

Cause Title: K.M. Gurushivakumar v. LIC Of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:25951)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Puttige R Ramesh, Advocate Lakshmi S Holla

Respondent: Senior Advocate S N Murthy, Advocate Rajashekar K

Click here to read/download Order