DEVDUTT SINGH versus THE LABOUR COURT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Devdutt Singh v. The Labour Court & Others - WRIT - C No. 35102 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 6127 (22 November 2005)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 35102 of 1997

Devdutt Singh vs. The Labour Court and others

..

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The present petition has been filed against an order dated 27.8.1997 in proceedings under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Saxena learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the entire record.

I have examined the application filed by the petitioner under section 33 (C) 2 in which two prayers have been made.  The prayers relate to the grant of promotional benefits. It is yet to be seen whether the promotion has been granted or not on the post of Store Keeper. The court below has correctly come to the conclusion that in proceedings under section 33 (C) 2 of the Act, these prayers cannot be granted.

It is a well-established notion of law that the proceedings under section 33 (C) 2 of the Act are in the nature of the execution proceedings and building a new case for grant of promotional and other benefits cannot be raised in such proceedings which are summary in nature. The scope of proceedings under section 33 (C) 2 of the Act are confined to granting benefits which have crystallized in favour of a applicant as has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the a catena of decisions and for this purpose, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Raja as reported in 1995 (1) SCC 235. The same view has been followed in the case of Union of India vs. Gurbachan Singh, as reported in 1997 (76) FLR 489 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the Labour Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 33 (C) 2 of the Act is devoid of power to adjudicate upon fresh claims; it can at best interpret an award or settlement and thereafter workout the wages.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show from the record that any rights had culminated in favour of the petitioner as Store Keeper.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 27.8.1997 is hereby confirmed. Interim order, if any, is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dated  22.11.2005

Rk/35102.97-4

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.