Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC v. MANJUNATH
Case No: 107562 OF 2014
Decided on: 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Facts of the case
In this instance, a worker who was fired due to misconduct filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to recover unpaid wages, claiming that the order of termination ”as not legally issued. The Court decided that an application under Section 33C(2) is not maintainable without a determination of rights, and that an order granted in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is void but needs to be challenged to avoid binding the parties. The writ petition was granted and the contested ruling was overturned as a result of the Corporation’s challenge to the Labour court’s order ordering payment to the worker.
Issues
1.Whether Manjunath’s termination appropriate, and did NWKRTC adhere to the correct protocols?
2. Whether Manjunath’s application maintainable under Industrial Disputes Act Section 33C(2)?
3. Whether interest rate should be applied to the money that Manjunath is owed?
4. Whether is it appropriate for the labor court to consider Manjunath’s claim?
Legal Provisions
1. Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
2. According to Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, if the dismissal order is not approved by the relevant body, the worker may demand earnings from the date of dismissal.
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant argued that as the sum requested had not been decided by a court and the order of dismissal was in effect at the time of filing, the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable before the Labour Court. The worker filed a claim for unpaid wages, claiming that the dismissal order was illegal since it had not been approved in accordance with the law. The Co-ordinate Bench determined that the Section 33C(2) application cannot be maintained in the absence of a rights adjudication, since the mere denial of an application does not confer the right to file one. The Labour Court’s ruling was overturned once the writ petition was granted.
Respondent’s Contentions
In order to support the application and argue that the dismissal decision since it was not approved in accordance with the law, the respondent, a worker, filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking arrears of wages. The respondent emphasized the right to obtain salary arrears and argued that the workman’s claim under Section 33C(2) is maintainable even in the absence of a challenge to the dismissal judgment or an application requesting permission. The need to review Industrial Disputes Act Section 33C(2) was brought up in order to assess whether the workman’s application could be maintained.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The ruling stressed that, as demonstrated in a prior case, an order issued in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is null and unlawful but needs to be challenged in order to prevent binding the parties. As an executive process to enforce a right, it was decided that an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act cannot be maintained without a rights adjudication regarding the order of dismissal. The Labour Court’s decision in the case was overturned when the writ petition was granted.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace
