Gopal Singh Vs. Sh. Banwari Lal and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1048374
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-01-2013
AppellantGopal Singh
RespondentSh. Banwari Lal and Another
Excerpt:
cwp no.15544 of 2010 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.15544 of 2010 date of decision:01. 04.2013 gopal singh ....petitioner versus sh. banwari lal and another ....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rajiv narain raina present: mr.g.s.bal, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.hars.aggarwal, advocate, for the respondents.”1. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rajiv narain raina, j. this petition arises out of a claim for payment of arrears of salary under section 33 c (2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short "the act").the claim for arrears of salary arose out of employment given by the respondent-company to the respondent after his retirement on reaching the age of superannuation in 1999. the petitioner complained before the labour court that he was employed by a verbal order though under an advertisement dated 27.12.1998 to look after medicinal plants in the residence of the managing director of the respondent-company. he was paid salary for four months whereafter no salary was paid till termination of service on 30.04.2000. the cwp no.15544 of 2010 -2- petitioner has not agitated his oral termination in any court further to the demand notice and the conciliation proceedings and submission of the failure report. mr.bal could not dispute that the petitioner had received certain amounts in full and final settlement of his account after he was employed as a retiree. those amounts were received by him without demur. the receipt showing payment of full and final dues on 22.06.2000 is ex.rw1/1. the labour court has found that the terminal benefits were paid to the petitioner at patna and, therefore, the labour court at gurgaon had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. the labour court has also observed that the application was based on a false stand in order to extract money from the respondent-company. if nothing remains to be paid or computed in terms of money, the jurisdiction under section 33 c (2) cannot be invoked. i find no infirmity in the impugned order or any error apparent on the face of record. resultantly, there is no life in this petition and i would dismiss it on hearing the learned counsel for the parties on their respective stands. (rajiv narain raina) judge 01 04.2013 manju
Judgment:

CWP No.15544 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15544 of 2010 Date of Decision:

01. 04.2013 Gopal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Sh.

Banwari Lal and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.HaRs.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondents.”

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

This petition arises out of a claim for payment of arrears of salary under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act").The claim for arrears of salary arose out of employment given by the respondent-Company to the respondent after his retirement on reaching the age of superannuation in 1999.

The petitioner complained before the Labour Court that he was employed by a verbal order though under an advertisement dated 27.12.1998 to look after Medicinal Plants in the residence of the Managing Director of the respondent-Company.

He was paid salary for four months whereafter no salary was paid till termination of service on 30.04.2000.

The CWP No.15544 of 2010 -2- petitioner has not agitated his oral termination in any Court further to the demand notice and the conciliation proceedings and submission of the failure report.

Mr.Bal could not dispute that the petitioner had received certain amounts in full and final settlement of his account after he was employed as a retiree.

Those amounts were received by him without demur.

The receipt showing payment of full and final dues on 22.06.2000 is Ex.RW1/1.

The Labour Court has found that the terminal benefits were paid to the petitioner at Patna and, therefore, the Labour Court at Gurgaon had no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

The Labour Court has also observed that the application was based on a false stand in order to extract money from the respondent-Company.

If nothing remains to be paid or computed in terms of money, the jurisdiction under Section 33 C (2) cannot be invoked.

I find no infirmity in the impugned order or any error apparent on the face of record.

Resultantly, there is no life in this petition and I would dismiss it on hearing the learned counsel for the parties on their respective stands.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 01 04.2013 manju