English Electric Co. of India Vs. V. Manohara Rao and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Labour and Industrial |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Nov-22-2000 |
| Civil Appeal Nos. 856-73 of 1994 |
| S. Rajendra Babu and; S.N. Variava, JJ. |
| (2001)ILLJ185SC; (2001)9SCC739 |
| Labour Law And Industrial Disputes Act 1947 -- Sections. 2(k), 33, 33-A and 33-C(2) |
| English Electric Co. of India |
| V. Manohara Rao and ors. |
| Appeal allowed |
-
[ s. rajendra babu and; s.n. variava, jj.] -- labour law — industrial disputes act, 1947 — sections. 2(k), 33, 33-a and 33-c(2) — held, protection of ss. 33 and 33-a is available only during pendency of proceedings relating to an industrial dispute — in the present case there was no industrial dispute but only a claim petition under section. 33-c(2) -- the respondents filed a claim petition under section 33-c(2) of the industrial disputes act claiming difference in the wages paid to the permanent workmen and to the respondents. during pendency of the said claim petition the services of the respondents were terminated on 16-10-1991. there was no industrial dispute but a claim petition under section 33-c(2) of the act was pending. the appeals are allowed accordingly - appellant complained of unfair trade practice......of the said claim petition the services of the respondents were terminated on 16-10-1991. a complaint is made under section 33-a of the industrial disputes act (“the act” for short) on the ground that during pendency of the proceedings filed under section 33-c(2) of the act the appellant has effected termination of services which amounts to unfair labour practice. on that basis the labour court held that the services of the respondents could not have been terminated and they were directed to be reinstated till the disposal of the claim petitions with back wages and other benefits. against this order these appeals are preferred.2. a plain reading of sections 33 and 33-a of the act will make it clear that it is only during the pendency of any proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute the provisions of section 33-a would be attracted and not otherwise. there was no industrial dispute but a claim petition under section 33-c(2) of the act was pending. this aspect was totally lost sight of by the labour court in dealing with this matter and, therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the order made by the labour court. the appeals are allowed accordingly.
S. Rajendra Babu and; S.N. Variava, JJ.
1. The respondents filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming difference in the wages paid to the permanent workmen and to the respondents. During pendency of the said claim petition the services of the respondents were terminated on 16-10-1991. A complaint is made under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (“the Act” for short) on the ground that during pendency of the proceedings filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act the appellant has effected termination of services which amounts to unfair labour practice. On that basis the Labour Court held that the services of the respondents could not have been terminated and they were directed to be reinstated till the disposal of the claim petitions with back wages and other benefits. Against this order these appeals are preferred.
2. A plain reading of Sections 33 and 33-A of the Act will make it clear that it is only during the pendency of any proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute the provisions of Section 33-A would be attracted and not otherwise. There was no industrial dispute but a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was pending. This aspect was totally lost sight of by the Labour Court in dealing with this matter and, therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the order made by the Labour Court. The appeals are allowed accordingly.