# NAMOR ALI CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS v. / CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1978] 2 S.C.R. 205
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-11-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 1973
- **Bench:** N. L. Untwalia, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/namor-ali-choudhury-and-others-v-central-inland-water-transport-corporation-ltd-7367
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

lndus:rial Disputes Act, 1947-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-lnterpretatin11 of uctio11 33C(I) and (2).
The appellants, workmen of the respondent company, filed an application
under section 33C(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the
Labo~r
Court asking it to compute their wages due from the respondent on the basIS
of certain settlements said to have been arrived at between them
and
the
management. Holding that each of the workman in the Assam Sector
was
also entitled to take advantage of the settlement between the company and its
emplo}'ees in West Bengal, the Labour Court allowed their application in part
rejecting only that portion of the claim of the workmen for Rs. 13/~ p.m. from
Feb. 1971 to Mar., 1972. The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ application
fiTed by the management and quashed the order of the Labour Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the court,
A
B
c
D
HELD : (I) The High Court Committed an error in narrowly interpreting
section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There are two parts of
the sub.section (2) of section 33C of the Act. The first part is concemed
with the money claim simpliciter and the second part speaks about computa·
tion in terms of money of any benefit to which the workman
is
entitled.
Where any workman is entitled to receive from employer any money and if
any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may be
E
decided by the Labour Court. The expression "if any question arises as to the
amount of money due" embraces within its ambit any one or more of four
kinds of disputes, namely: (1) Whether there is any settlement or award as
alleged? (2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive from the employer
any money at all under any settlement or an award etc. ? (3) If so, what
will be the rate or quantum of such amount ? and, ( 4) Whether the amount
claimed is due or not ? A dispute as to all such questions or any of them
would attract the provisions of section 3 3C (2) of the Act and make
the
F
remedy available to the workman concerned. If the right to get the money
on the basis of the settlement or the award is not established, no amount of
money wm be due. If it is established, then it has to be found out, albeit,
ii may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due. For finding it
out, it is not necessary that there should be a dispute as to the amount of
money due also. The fourth kind of dispute will
be
covered
by phrase
"amount of money due". [207 A, C-H, 208 A]
Central Ban~ of l~dia Ltd, .v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. (1964) 3 S.C.R.
G
140; R. B. Bans1la/ Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court Nagpur & Ors.
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 580; and Sahu Minerals and Propeties Ltd. v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court and others, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745, followed.
(2). Satisfaction o! the appropriate Goven1ment which is spoken of in
sub·s~ct1op. (1) of section 33C of the Act in their prima facie satisfaction when
a claun is made by any workman before the Government for issuance of a
ce~ificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount due.
If the approH
pnate _Government finds that. the amount clai"!ed. by the workman is due and
~here 1s no sue~ dISpnte "".h1ch needs any !"11ud1cation by the Labour Court
in accordance with sub.section (2) or the dispute raised is not bona fide, then
A
B
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 2 S.C.R.
the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector
who shall_ proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land
revenue. [208 D-E]
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R.
977, not applicable.

## Text

205
NAMOR ALI CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS
v.
/
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LTD. AND ANOTHER
November 16, 1977
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J
lndus:rial Disputes Act, 1947-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-lnterpretatin11 of uctio11 33C(I) and (2).
The appellants, workmen of the respondent company, filed an application
under section 33C(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the
Labo~r
Court asking it to compute their wages due from the respondent on the basIS
of certain settlements said to have been arrived at between them
and
the
management. Holding that each of the workman in the Assam Sector
was
also entitled to take advantage of the settlement between the company and its
emplo}'ees in West Bengal, the Labour Court allowed their application in part
rejecting only that portion of the claim of the workmen for Rs. 13/~ p.m. from
Feb. 1971 to Mar., 1972. The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ application
fiTed by the management and quashed the order of the Labour Court.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the court,
A
B
c
D
HELD : (I) The High Court Committed an error in narrowly interpreting
section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There are two parts of
the sub.section (2) of section 33C of the Act. The first part is concemed
with the money claim simpliciter and the second part speaks about computa·
tion in terms of money of any benefit to which the workman
is
entitled.
Where any workman is entitled to receive from employer any money and if
any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may be
E
decided by the Labour Court. The expression "if any question arises as to the
amount of money due" embraces within its ambit any one or more of four
kinds of disputes, namely: (1) Whether there is any settlement or award as
alleged? (2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive from the employer
any money at all under any settlement or an award etc. ? (3) If so, what
will be the rate or quantum of such amount ? and, ( 4) Whether the amount
claimed is due or not ? A dispute as to all such questions or any of them
would attract the provisions of section 3 3C (2) of the Act and make
the
F
remedy available to the workman concerned. If the right to get the money
on the basis of the settlement or the award is not established, no amount of
money wm be due. If it is established, then it has to be found out, albeit,
ii may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due. For finding it
out, it is not necessary that there should be a dispute as to the amount of
money due also. The fourth kind of dispute will
be
covered
by phrase
"amount of money due". [207 A, C-H, 208 A]
Central Ban~ of l~dia Ltd, .v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. (1964) 3 S.C.R.
G
140; R. B. Bans1la/ Abirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court Nagpur & Ors.
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 580; and Sahu Minerals and Propeties Ltd. v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court and others, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1745, followed.
(2). Satisfaction o! the appropriate Goven1ment which is spoken of in
sub·s~ct1op. (1) of section 33C of the Act in their prima facie satisfaction when
a claun is made by any workman before the Government for issuance of a
ce~ificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount due.
If the approH
pnate _Government finds that. the amount clai"!ed. by the workman is due and
~here 1s no sue~ dISpnte "".h1ch needs any !"11ud1cation by the Labour Court
in accordance with sub.section (2) or the dispute raised is not bona fide, then
A
B
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 2 S.C.R.
the Government shall issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector
who shall_ proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land
revenue. [208 D-E]
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda [1962] 2 Suppl. S.C.R.
977, not applicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
2-5-73 of the Gaubati High Coui:t in Civil Rule No. 778 of 1972.
l
M. K. Ramamurthi, A. K. Ganguly and D. P. Mukherjee for the
-
Appellants.
c
D
Nimz De, M. K. Banerjee, S. M. Mandel, A. G. Menesses for respondent No. 1
The Judgment of the Court wa·s delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated the 2nd of May,
1973 setting aside the order of the Labour Court, Gauhati dated. the
26th July, 1972. The facts are in a very narrow compass and the
point involved is short.
The appellants, workmen of the respondent company, filed an
application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act in the Labour Court
asking it to compute their wages due from the re·spondent on the basis
E
of certain settlements said to have been arrived at between them and
the management. The Labour Court allowed their application in part
and held that each of the workman was entitled to get Rs. 848 /- froni
the respondent company @ Rs. 20/- per month from December, 1969
to March, 1972 and @Rs. 12/- from March, 1970 to March, 1972.
The claim of the workmen for Rs. 13 /- per month from February,
1971 to March, 1972 was reiected by the Labour Court. The rnanaoe--
F
ment challenged the order of the Labour Court in Civil Ru le N~. 778
of 1972 by a writ application. The Hi~h Court allowed the application
and quashed the order of the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.
It may be stated here that the only dispute between the management and the workmen in the proceeding under section 33Cl2) of
the Act was whether the employees in the Assam Sector were also·
G
entitled to take advonta~e of the settlement between the company Rnd
its employees in West Bengal.
The quantum or the rate of extra
wages to wh;ch the wnrkmen would have been entitled if the advantaees under the settlement were found available to them was not in
dispute.
In that view of the matter. the High Court was of the opinion,
to quote the relevant words from its judgrnentH
"For conferring jurisdiction on a Labour Court under
section 33Cl2). it is not only necessarv that the workmen
should be entitled to any money due but also that there
should be a dispute about the amount of that money.
It is
'
NA,M:PR ALI v. Cl!N'fML INJ,,\l'ID WATER ( Untwalia, !.)
clear that thll!"e is no dispμte with re&ard to tb.e aJ:\lOunts of
money which have already ~n fixed by the settlem.ent. That
being the position, there is. no question withiμ the scope of
section 33C(2) for determination by the Labour Court in
this. case."
207
A
In our judgment the High Court has committed an error in so B
narrowly interpreting section 33C(2) of the Act.
Tht1 said provision
runs as follows. :
"Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being
computed in terms of money and if any question arises as
to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which
c
such benefit 'should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by
the appropriate Government.''
There are two parts of the sub-section as it stands after its amendment
by Act 36 of 1964.
The first part is concerned with the money claim
D
simpliciter and the second part speaks about computation in terniS
of money of any benefit to which the workman is entitled.
Although
for appreciation of the point at issue there is no substantial difference
between the two, we shall confine our discussion to the money claim
only pure and simple.
On a plain reading of the wordings of the
Statue it would be found that where any workman is entitled to receive
from employer any money and if any question arises as to the amount
Ji:
of money due, then the question may be decided by the Labour Court
The expression "If any question arises as to the amount of money due"
embraces within its ambit any one or more of the following kinds of
di&putes :-
(I) Whether there is any settlement
or award as
alleged?
.
F
(2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive from the
employer any money at all under any settlement or an
award etc?
( 3) If so, what will be the rate or quantum
of such
amount?
( 4) Whether the amount claimed is due or not?
Broadly speaking, these will be tb.e disputes which will be referable to the
question as to the amount of money due. If the right to get the money
on the basis of the settlement or the award is not established, fio amount
of money will be due.
If it is established, then it has to be found out,
G
albeit, it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due.
H
For finding it out, is not necessary that there should be a dispute as to
the aniount of money due also.
The fourth kind of dispute which we
have indicated above obviously and literally will be covered by the
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 2 S.C.R.
A
phrase "amount of money due." A dispute as to all such questions or
any of them would attract the provisions of section 33C(2J of the Act
and make the remedy available to the workman concerned.
B
c
D
E
F
It is not necessary to elaborately discuss the various authorities
of this C..ourt on the point. To our mind the view we have expressed
above is plainly and squarely covered by the principles of law enunciated by this Court in several decisions; to wit, The Central Bank of India
Ltd. v. P. S. Raiagopalan etc.('). R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co.
Ltd. v. Labour Court Nagpur & Ors. (2) and Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others.( 3)
Learned counsel for the respondent company endeavoured to support the judgment of the High Court with reference to the provision
of sub-·s(~ction (1) of section 33C of the Act.
Coonsel submitted that
if there is a dispute as to any amount due, it is to be decided by the
appropriate Government under the said provision of law and not by
the Labour Court under sub-section (2), which is mainly concerned
with the computation of the amount.
Such an argument is too obviously wrong to be accepted.
A detailed discussion is not necessary to
reject it.
The satisfaction of the appropriate Government which is
spoken of in sub-section ( J ) is their prima facie satisfaction when a
claim is made by any workman before the Government for issuance
of a cer1ificate by the Collector for realisation of the amount due. lt
the appropriate Government finds that the amount claimed by the
workman 1s due and there is rto such dispute which needs any adjudication by the Labour Court in accordance with sub-·section (2) or the
dispute raised is not bona fide, theu the Government shall issue a
certificate for the amount due to the Collector who shall proceed to
recover the same in the manner as an arrear of land revenue.
Tho
decision of this Court in Puniab National Bank Limited v. K. L. Kharbanda(•) does not help the respondent ai all in support of the interpreta1ion sought to be put by it to sub-section (1) of section 33C.
For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal with costs, set
aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the Labour
Court.
S.R.
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 140.
(2) [1972[ 2 S.C.R. 580.
(3) A.LR. 1975 S.C. 1745.
(4) [1962]2 Suppl. SC.R. 9i7.
Appeal allowed.