# Union of India and others v. The Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. Cum Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 577
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7768 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-and-others-v-the-presiding-officer-c-g-i-t-cum-labour-court-40131
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute Act 1947, Sec. 33-C
(2)-
application
for
computation
of
arrears of wages-for period in disputeheld not maintainable U/s 33-C (2)-
since,
the
amount
claimed
is
not
predetermined
and
eligibility
of
workmen for such claim is also disputed-
Direction for computation of claimed
amount-quashed-workman,
however,
permitted to take such recourse to law,
as open to him.

Held- Para 8

In
this
view
of
the
matter,
the
respondent no. 1 has categorically fell in
error in directing the computation and
payment of amount of Rs.42,450/- as
prayed for by the workman. The labour
court
should
have
rejected
the
application on the ground that there is
no pre-determined sum and particularly
in view of the dispute regarding the
workman entitlement to the wages for
the
period
in
dispute,
atleast
an
application under Section 33-C (2) of the
Act cannot be said to be maintainable in
view of the settled law laid down by the
Apex Court.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
578
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 Mad 170

## Text

2 All] Union of India and others V. The Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. cum L. C. and another
577
Textile and Steels Ltd. (supra) that the
interest of general public has a known
concept. It is a guiding factor which
should
have
been
taken
into
consideration. The record does not show
that the State Government had taken into
account the interest of general public as
one of the factors, specially when order
was to deprive 238 employees of their
right to the retrenchment compensation to
be determined in accordance with the Act,
as well as compensation of six years
wages to be paid to them under the orders
of the Supreme Court.

27. For the aforesaid reasons the
impugned orders dated 26.4.2002 passed
by the State Government permitting
closure of Agra Engineering Industries,
Agra (a unit of Jai Engineering Works
Ltd), under section 25 'O' of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, as well as the order
on review application dated 2.9.2002 are
declared to be illegal and arbitrary and
ultra virus to the condition of exercise of
such power under section 25 'O' of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ
petition is, accordingly, allowed and the
impugned orders dated 26.4.2002 and
2.9.2002 are set aside, and the respondent
no. 2 is directed to pay entire arrears and
regular wages to its workmen. Petitioner
shall be entitled to cost from the
respondents quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7768 of 1998

Union of India and others
...Petitioner
Versus
The
Presiding
Officer,
C.G.I.T.
Cum
Labour Court, Kanpur Nagar and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri G.P. Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramendra Asthana
S.C.

Industrial Dispute Act 1947, Sec. 33-C
(2)-
application
for
computation
of
arrears of wages-for period in disputeheld not maintainable U/s 33-C (2)-
since,
the
amount
claimed
is
not
predetermined
and
eligibility
of
workmen for such claim is also disputed-
Direction for computation of claimed
amount-quashed-workman,
however,
permitted to take such recourse to law,
as open to him.

Held- Para 8

In
this
view
of
the
matter,
the
respondent no. 1 has categorically fell in
error in directing the computation and
payment of amount of Rs.42,450/- as
prayed for by the workman. The labour
court
should
have
rejected
the
application on the ground that there is
no pre-determined sum and particularly
in view of the dispute regarding the
workman entitlement to the wages for
the
period
in
dispute,
atleast
an
application under Section 33-C (2) of the
Act cannot be said to be maintainable in
view of the settled law laid down by the
Apex Court.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
578
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 Mad 170

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioner-employer aggrieved
by the award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur Nagar passed in L.C.A. no. 292 of
1996
filed
by
the
respondent
no.
2/workman under Section 33-C (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, which has been
allowed by the respondent no. 1 vide its
order dated 12th January, 1998 (Annexure
'12' to the writ petition) in favour of
workman, has approached this Court by
means of this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

The facts leading to the filing of the
present
writ
petition
are
that
the
respondent no. 2 workman filed an
application
purporting
to
be
an
application under Section 33-C (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central)
for computation of Rs.42,450/- as arrears
of wages, which, according to the
applicant, namely, workman concerned,
had not been paid being the wages for the
period in dispute. It is not disputed that
the workman claimed wages for the
period when the workman concerned was
transferred from Agra to Gwalior where
he did not join pursuant to the transfer
order
and
preferred
an
Original
Application No. 516 of 1995 before the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad wherein the relief claimed was
the same, namely, wages with effect from
19th July, 1995 to 18th October, 1996,
total comes to Rs.42,450/- During the
pendency of this original application,
there was an interim order and in
pursuance whereof the workman, as the
case set up, did not join at Gwalior.
Ultimately, this original application was
dismissed and during the pendency of the
original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, (for short CAT),
Allahabad, the petitioner preferred a
contempt petition which has also been
dismissed and thereafter the workman
concerned has filed an application, as
stated above, under Section 33-C (2) of
the
Industrial
Disputes
Act,
1947
(Central), hereinafter referred to as the
'Act'. This application under section 33-C
(2) of the Act has been allowed and the
Presiding
Officer
of
the
Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Kanpur has directed for
payment of a sum of Rs.42,450/-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that in view of the long
litigation before the CAT, this application
under Section 33-C (2) of the Act is not
maintainable and ought to have been
rejected. For this purpose, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the decision of Madras High Court
reported in A.I.R. 2003 Madras-170, C.A.
Balakrishnan
Vs.
Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras.

4. I have gone through the aforesaid
judgment. The facts of the case show that
case has arisen out of proceeding of suit
and, thereafter, the writ petition was filed
which was dismissed on the ground that
the matter once taken up in a suit cannot
be permitted to be re-agitated in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. There is no dispute
in the aforesaid proposition but the
present writ petition arises out of
proceeding under the Industrial Disputes
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Union of India and others V. The Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. cum L. C. and another
579
Act. Therefore, in my opinion, the law
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the present
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has laid much emphasis that the conduct
of the petitioner has to be seen that he
first took his chance before the CAT and
on the strength of the interim order, he
filed even a contempt petition, which was,
ultimately, dismissed. Thereupon, he filed
the present application in a proceeding
under the provisions of Section 33-C (2)
of the Act, as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further stated that the relief sought in
the proceeding before the CAT and the
relief
sought
before
the
Industrial
Tribunal was precisely the same, namely,
the wages for the period in dispute.
Therefore, the respondent-workman is, in
fact, abusing the process of the Court and
the application deserves to be dismissed
on this ground alone.

6. As already held that the
application cannot be rejected on this
ground that after the litigation before the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
the
workman has taken recourse to Industrial
Disputes Act.

7. However, after going through the
application filed and the order impugned
in the present writ petition, in my opinion,
this writ petition deserves to be allowed
on the short question that proceeding
under Section 33-C (2) of the Act are in
the nature of execution which requires a
pre-determined amount and there shall not
be any dispute with regard to the same.
From the controversy in the present case
and from the averments made by the
petitioner-employer, it is abundantly clear
that the employer has categorically set up
the case that in view of the fact that the
workman concerned having not objected
the transfer order and had not joined at the
place where he was transferred, he cannot
claim wages for the same period,
particularly when there is nothing on
record to demonstrate that this transfer
order is either reversed or that the
petitioner has joined immediately after the
transfer order is passed. That being the
factual position, it is a clear case of
dispute
being
raised
regarding
the
eligibility of the workman for the amount
for which computation was sought under
Section 33-C (2) of the Act.

8. In this view of the matter, the
respondent no. 1 has categorically fell in
error in directing the computation and
payment of amount of Rs.42,450/- as
prayed for by the workman. The labour
court should have rejected the application
on the ground that there is no predetermined sum and particularly in view
of the dispute regarding the workman
entitlement to the wages for the period in
dispute, atleast an application under
Section 33-C (2) of the Act cannot be said
to be maintainable in view of the settled
law down by the Apex Court.

9. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition deserves to be
allowed on the ground referred to above
and the order of the labour court dated
12th January, 1998 deserves to be
quashed and is hereby quashed. The
application filed by the workman under
Section 33-C (2) of the Act is held to be
not maintainable. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, it will be
open to the workman to take such
recourse of law as are open to him.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
580

10. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The order of the Labour Court
dated 12th January, 1998 (Annexure '12'
to the writ petition) is quashed and the
application filed by the workman under
Section 33-C (2) of the Act is held to be
not maintainable. However, it will be
open to the workman to take such
recourse of law as are open to him. There
will be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3818 of 2001

Dr.(Mrs.) Abha Agarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University,
Allahabad

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dr. R.G. Padia
Sri P. Padia
Sri R.G. Tripathi
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226-Service
Law- whether dearness Allowance can
be granted to the family pensioner who
is already employed in any office of the
State?

Held- Yes- Petition allowed.

Held- Para 10

We find that the Act of the respondent
no.4
in
deducting
the
amount
Rs.44,824.55 from the account of the
petitioner on the alleged ground of her
being
in
employment
was
illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction or
justification. Otherwise also no such
deduction
should
have
been
made
without giving notice or opportunity to
the petitioner. We deprecate one sided
action of Respondent no.4.
Case Law discussed:
2000 (87) FLR 435

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Petitioner before us, Dr.(Mrs.)
Abha Agarwal, has filed this petition
under Article 226, Constitution of India
claiming following reliefs :-

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay on Family Pension
to the petitioner payable on the basis
of death of her husband, Dr. D. C.
Agarwal, including DA and other
adhoc reliefs w. e. f. 7.7.1992.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to refund Rs.44,824.55
deducted from the Bank Account of
the petitioner on the basis of excess
payment being given to the petitioner
in the form of DA on the Family
Pension being paid to the petitioner
along with interest of 18% per annum.

(iii)issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to pay 18% interest on the
amount which has been withheld by
the respondents in the form of DA and
other adhoc reliefs from the date it
falls due to the petitioner.

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem it
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in