CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 18, 1970 of the Labour Court, Delhi in L.C.A. No. 709 of 1968. O. P. Malhotra, N. S. Das Bahl, P. S. Mahindru and Sat Pal, for the appellant. L. D. A dlakha, Promod Swarup and S. S. Khanduja, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. Facts necessary for understanding the short but important point arising for decision in this appeal by special leave are these : The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office in New Delhi. Its entire share capital has been subscribed by the Central Government. Pritam Singh Gill, respondent no. 1, in this appeal was employed by the 1208Sup CI/72 appellant as Junior Engineer at its Bhopal office with effect from the 9th November, 1962 at Rs. 280/- p.m. as basic salary with other allowances. On October 5, 1964 he was suspended and this order, of suspension remained in force till September 18, 1967. He was dismissed from service on September 19, 1967. During the period of suspension, on October 7, 1965, the respondent was transferred to Delhi. On June 15, 1968 the respondent applied to the Labour Court at Delhi under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for computing the benefits and amount he was entitled to receive alleging that the appellant had not paid to him such amounts and benefits. The appellant contested the respondent’s claim on various grounds. The, Labour Court framed the following four issues : 1. Whether the application is not legally maintainable ? 2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition ? 3. Whether the petitioner has been dismissed with effect from 19-9-1967, if so its effect ? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to. any of the benefits claimed ?" and decided all of them in favour of the respondent who was held entitled to Rs. 5,195/- as balance of salary at the rate of Rs. 1501p.m. for the period of suspension and also other allowances, the total amount computed being Rs. 10,259.98. Before us the appellant only questioned the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the respondent’s application under s. 33C(2) of the Act because, according to the submission, the respondent, having already been dismissed, had ceased to be a workman on the date of the application. After his dismissal, argued Shri Malhotra learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent ceased to be a workman and had, therefore, no locus standi to approach the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application. The date of the application under s. 33C(2) of the Act, contended the counsel, is the crucial point of time, when-it is to be seen whether or not the applicant is a workman. The respondent on the other hand emphasised that if the period, in respect of which the benefits and amount are claimed under S. 33C(2) of the Act, was during the course of his employment prior to his dismissal, then, the mere fact, that he was dismissed by his employer before he could apply to the Labour Court under s. 33C(2), would not deprive him of his right to claim relief under that section. The sole question we are thus called upon to decide is, whether s. 33C(2) can be invoked by a dismissed workman in respect of benefits and salary due, to him for the period prior to the date of his dismissal. It may be stated that the appellant did not contend that a workman under suspension is disentitled to seek relief under s. 33C(2) and indeed, it was specifically conceded that a suspended workman could invoke this section for relief because by suspension he does not cease to be a workman as defined in the Act. The question posed is a pure question of law depending on the construction of the relevant statutory provisions. The Act was brought on the statute book for making provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes. Section 2(s) defines "workman’ to mean ,,any person (including in apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, include-; any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; or (ii) who is employed in the police, service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." It is noteworthy that s. 2 by its opening words expressly includes the operation of this section in case of repugnancy in the subject or context.- Section 33C provides for recovery of money due from ail employer and sub-s. (2) of this section reads as under:---
"(2) 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 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." According to the appellants submission, under S. 33C(2) the applicant cannot claim that his dismissal is unlawful and that he should, therefore, be deemed to be in service and on that basis entitled to receive salary or wages under the pre-existing contract. Now, if challenge to his dismissal is not open under this provision of law then the respondent must be considered to be a dismissed workman, and.. therefore, outside the purview of "workman" as defined in s.2(s). A dismissed workman, the argument proceeded, is to be considered as a workman under this provision only for the purposes of that proceeding under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute, which has either arisen out of, or resulted in or is connected with, his dismissal. In support of this submission he relied on the Central Bank of India v. P. S. Rajagopalan(1). At p. 156 of the report it was observed there that
"If an employee is dismissed or demoted and it
is his case that the dismissal or demotion is
wrongful, it would not be open to him to make
a claim for the recovery of his salary or
wages under s. 33C(2). His demotion or
dismissal may give rise to an industrial
dispute which may be appropriately tried, but
once it is shown that the employer has
dismissed or demoted him, a claim that the
dismissal or demotion is unlawful and,
therefore, the employee continues to be the
workman of the employer and is entitled to the
benefits due to him under a pre-existing
contract, cannot be made under s. 33C(2)" Reference was also made on behalf of the appellants to Messrs Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar & ors. (2) where it is observed at p. 823 :
"Ordinarily, the law is that a workman may be
suspended pending enquiry and disciplinary
action. If after the enquiry the misconduct
is proved the workman is dismissed and is not
entitled to any wages for the suspension
period; but if the inquiry results in the
reinstatement of the workman he is entitled to
full wages for the suspension period also
along with reinstatement unless the employer
instead of dismissing the employee can give
him a lesser punishment by way of withholding
of part of the wages for the suspension
period." These observations were made in an entirely different context and have nothing to do with the narrow point on which alone the appellant based his challenge to the judgment impugned in this appeal. The case cited has not the remotest connection with s. 33C of the Act. The decision in the Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan (supra) also in our opinion, does not assist us in deciding the question requiring determination because the respondent before us claims relief with respect to the period of suspension prior to his dismissal and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not questioned by the appellant on the ground that the only relief available to the respondent is to raise an industrial dispute with regard to his dismissal. The respondent in the present case is not seeking relief against his dismissal as indeed consistently with the order of dismissal his claim is confined to the benefits and amount which. he was entitled to receive for the period prior to his dismissal. However, the decision in Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan (supra) does trace the legislative history of Chapter VA and s. 33C of the Act and after doing, so. the Court observed
"In our opinion, on a fair and reasonable
construction of sub-s. (2) it is clear that if
a workman’s right to receive the benefit is
dispute, that may have to be determined by the
Labour Court. Before proceeding to compute
the benefit in terms of money the Labour Court
inevitably has to deal with the question as to
whether the workman has a, right to receive
that benefit. If the said right is not
disputed, nothing more needs to be done and
the Labour Court can proceed to compute the
value of the benefit in terms of money; but if
the said right is disputed, the Labour Court
must deal with that question and decide
whether the workman has the right to receive
the benefit as alleged by him and it is only
if the Labour Court answers this point in
favour of the workman that the next question
of making necessary computation can arise."
And again,
"Besides, it seems to us that if the
appellant’s construction is accepted, it would
necessarily mean that it would be at the
option of the employer to allow the work-man
to avail himself of the remedy provided by
sub-s.(2) because he has merely to raise an
objection on the ground that the right claimed
by the workman is not admitted to oust the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain
the workman’s application. The claim
unders.33C(2)clearly postulates that the
determination of the question about computing
the benefit in terms of money may, in some
cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into
the existence of the right and such an enquiry
must be held to be incidental to the main
determination which has been assigned to the
Labour Court by sub-s. (2)." Section 33C of the Act has been the subject matter of several judicial pronouncements. This Court has also dealt with this section in several decisions. In Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameswar & ors. (1) this Court deduced from three of its earlier decisions the following propositions:--
"(1) The legislative history indicates that
the legislature, after providing broadly for
the investigation and settlement of disputes
on the basis of collective bargaining,
recognised the need of individual workmen of a
speedy remedy to enforce their existing
individual rights and therefore inserted s.
33A in 1950 and s. 33C in 1956. These two
sections illustrate cases in which individual
workmen can enforce their rights without
having to take recourse to s. 10(1) and
without having to depend on their union to
espouse their case.
(2) In view of this history two
considerations are relevant while construing
the scope of s. 33C. Where industrial
disputes arise between workmen acting collec-
tively and their employers such disputes must
be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed
by the Act, as for instance under s. 10(1).
But having regard to the legislative policy to
provide a speedy remedy to individual workmen
for enforcing their existing rights, it would
not be reasonable to exclude their existing
rights sought to be implemented by individual
workmen. Therefore though in determining the
scope of s. 33C care should be taken not to
exclude cases which legitimately fall within
its purview, cases which fall, for instance,
under s. 10(1), cannot be brought under s.
33C;
(3) Section 33C which is in terms similar to
those in s. 20 of the Industrial Disputes
(Appellate Tribunal) ,Act, 1950 is a provision
in the nature of an executing provision;
(4) Section 33C(1) applies to cases where
money is due to a workman under an award or
settlement or under Chapter VA of the Act
already calculated and ascertained and
therefore there is no dispute about its
computation. But sub-section 2 applies both
to non-monetary as well as monetary benefits.
In the case of monetary benefit it applies
where such benefit though due is not
calculated and there is a dispute about its
calculation;
(5) Section 33C(2) takes within its purview
cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to
which they ire entitled should be computed in
terms of money even though the right to the
benefit on which their claim is
based is disputed by their employers. It is,
open to the Labour Court to interpret the
award or settlement on which the workmen’s
rights rests.
(6) The fact that the words of limitation
used in s. 20(2) of the Industrial Disputes
(Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 are omitted in
wider than that of s. 33C(1). Therefore,
whereas sub-section I is confined to claims
arising under
an award or settlement or Chapter VA, claims
which can be entertained under subsection 2
are not so confined to those under an award,
settlement or Chapter VA.
(7) Though the court did not indicate which
cases other than those under sub-section 1
would fall under sub-section 2 it pointed out
illustrative cases which would not fall under
sub-section 2 viz. cases which would
appropriately be adjudicated under S. 10(1) or
claims which have already been the subject-
matter of settlement to which ss. 18 and 19
would apply.
(8) Since proceedings under s. 33C(2) are
analogous to execution proceedings and the
Labour Court called upon to compute in terms
of money the benefit claimed by a workman is
in such cases in the position of an executing
court, the Labour Court like, the executing
court in execution proceedings _governed by
the Code of Civil Procedure, is competent
under s. 33C(2) to interpret the award or
settlement where the benefit is claimed under
such award or settlement and it would be open
to it to consider the plea of nullity where
the award is made without jurisdiction. In U.P. Electric Supply Co. v. R. K. Shukla(1) this Court approvingly referred to a passage from the judgment in Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. (supra), already reproduced by us, in which, inter alia, it was emphasised that Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of an existing right arising from the relationship of an industrial workman and his employer. Again in R. B. Bansilal Abhirchand Mills Co. (P) Ltd. v. The Labour Court, Nagpur(2) this Court, after a review of its previous decisions, upheld the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain application for lay-off compensation wider s. 33C observing that such jurisdiction could not be ousted by a mere plea denying the workman’s claim to computation of the benefit in terms of money, adding that the Labour Court had to go into the question and determine whether on the facts it had jurisdiction to make the computation. (1) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 237. (2) A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 451. We now turn to some decisions of the High Courts which directly deal with this point. In Tiruchi-Srirangam Transport Co., (P) Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madurai(1) Ramachandra Ayyar J., repelled a similar contention as was raised before us by Shri Malhotra on behalf of the appellant. In the case. cited one Iswaran was employed as a traffic supervisor in Tiruchi-Srirangam Transport Co., (P) Ltd. His services were terminated in December, 1956 under a scheme of retrenchment. Later, disputes were raised between the management and other workers regarding bonus for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 and a settlement was reached in April, 1958 pursuant to which the management declared additional bonus and one month’s wage for each of the two years. Iswaran having not been paid anything by way of bonus though he had worked during those two years applied to the Labour Court for necessary relief under s. 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court having granted the relief claimed. the management approached the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution questioning the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain Iswaran’s claim. The High Court repelled this challenge though on an other point relating to the claimant’s right to benefit under the settlement, the case was remitted back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision. It was observed in that decision that while enacting s. 33C(2), the Legislature did not intend merely to provide a remedy for the limited class of persons who are in actual employment on the date of the application under that section. The words "any workman" in s. 33C(2), according to that decision, would mean a workman who would be entitled to benefits conferred under the Act and would necessarily include a discharged workman as well. In Manicka Mudaliar (M) v. Labour Court, Madras(1) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, while hearing a writ appeal, from the decision of a learned single Judge of that Court also upheld the competency of a petition under s. 33C(2) of the Act for arrears of salary and one month’s salary in lieu of notice, although at the time of the application the applicant was no longer in service of the employer. Following these Madras decisions a learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bachittar Singh v. Central Labour Court, Jullundur(3), a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in The Management of Government Soap Factory, Bangalore v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bangalore(4) and the Allahabad High Court in U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., v. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Allahabad(5) took the same view. In the Allahabad case, however, the provision which directly came up for construction was s. 6H of the U.P. Industrial (1) [1961] 1 L.L.J. 729. (3) A.I.R. 1969 Punjab 187. (5) [1966] It I.L.J. 715. (2) [1961] 1 L.L.J. 592. (4) A.I.R. 1970 Mys. 225. Disputes Act, the language of which was considered to be identical with that of s. 33C of the Act. Incidentally it may be pointed out that s. 6H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has been held to be identical with s. 33C of the Act even by this Court. Shri Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that all these decisions require reconsideration because they ignore a vital point in construing s. 2(s) which defines "workman". This definition has already been reproduced. According to the appellant’s submission these decisions have ignored the vital point that the definition of "workman" specifically includes within its fold, only for the purpose of a proceeding under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute, persons who have, been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of that, dispute or, whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute. Since certain categories of persons are also expressly stated not to be included in this definition the Legislature must, according to the argument, be considered to have intended to define this word with exactitude and precision and its scope, therefore, cannot be extended to the dismissed, discharged or retrenched persons except strictly for the purposes of the proceedings expressly mentioned in the inclusive clause. The fact that the definition also specifically excludes from its purview four categories of persons employed in an industry who would have otherwise been within the periphery of the definition shows that the legislature intended to be meticulously precise leaving no scope for any intendment extending the literal meaning of the language used to dismissed employees for purposes of other proceedings not specified in s. 33C(2) of the Act. The definition. said Shri Malhotra, is exhaustive renderings, its extension impermissible. The counsel also commented on the recent decision of this Court in R. B. Bansilal Abhirchand Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Labour Court, Nagpur (supra). According to Shri Malhotra this decision does not touch the question whether a dismissed employee can be considered as a workman for the purpose of approaching the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) of the Act and he emphasised that this case should be considered to be confined to its own facts. The further contention pressed by Shri Malhotra was that the respondent’s claim raises an industrial dispute and, therefore, it would be more appropriate for him to claim a reference under s. to, of the Act. This contention being based only on the appellant’s denial of the claim cannot exclude the applicability of S. 33C(2). He also made a reference to the decision of this Court in Bennet Coleman & Co., (P) Ltd. v. Punya Priya Das Gupta(1) which was concerned with the Working Journalists (Conditions of Ser vice) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 45 of 1955 and contended that in that decision the definitions in s. 2(c) and (f) of that Act took within their fold persons who were no longer in the employment of their erstwhile employer against whom their claim was made, provided the claim related to a period when they were in his employment. Shri Malhotra pointed out that in the reported case there was no clause in the statutory definition including therein for limited purposes certain persons otherwise not within the definition and excluding therefrom certain other categories of persons who would otherwise fall within the definition. This is how that case was sought to be distinguished from the present. The crucial point which requires consideration on the appellant’s argument is thus confined to the precise scope and meaning of the word "workman" used in s. 33C(2) in the background of the definition of this word as contained in s. 2(s). Now, it is noteworthy that s. 2 of the Act, which is the definition section begins, as is usual with most of the definition sections, with the clause, "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context". This clearly indicates that it is always a matter for argument whether or not this statutory definition is to apply to, the word "workman" as used in the particular clause of the Act which is under consideration, for this word may both be restricted or expanded by its subject matter. The. context and the subject matter in connection with which the word "workman" is used are accordingly important factors having a bearing on the question. The propriety or necessity of thus construing the word "workman" is obvious because all parts of the Act have to be in harmony with the statutory intent. Keeping this in mind we may turn to the purpose and object of s. 33C of the Act. This section was enacted for the purpose of enabling individual workmen to implement, enforce or execute their existing individual rights against their employers without being compelled to have recourse to s. 10 by raising disputes:and securing a reference which is obviously a lengthy process. Section 33C of the Act has accordingly been described as a provision which clothes the Labour Court with the powers similar to those of an executing court so that the workman concerned receives speedy relief in respect of his existing individual rights. The primary purpose of the section being to provide the aggrieved workman with a form similar to the executing courts, it calls for a broad and beneficial construction consistently with other provisions of the Act, which should serve to advance the remedy and to suppress the mischief. It may appropriately be pointed out that the mischief which s. 33C was designed to suppress was the difficulties faced by individual workmen in getting relief in respect of their existing rights without having resort to s. 10 of the Act. To accept the argument of the appellant, it would always be open to an unfair, unsympathetic and unscrupulous employer to terminate the services of his employee in order to deprive him of the benefit conferred by s. 33C and compel him to have resort to the lengthy procedure by way of reference under s. 10 of the Act thereby defeating the very purpose and object of enacting this provision This, in our view, quite clearly brings out the repugnancy visualised in the opening part of s. 2 of the Act and such a position could hardly have been contemplated by the legislature. In order to remove this repugnancy s. 33C(2) must be so construed as to take within its fold a workman, who was employed during the period in respect of which he claims relief, even though he is no longer employed at the time of the application. In other words the term "workman" as used in s. 33C(2) includes all persons whose claim, requiring computation under this sub-section, is in respect of an existing right arising from his relationship as an industrial workman with his employer. By adopting this construction alone can we advance the remedy and suppress the mischief in accordance with the purpose and object of inserting s. 33C in the Act. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the view taken by the Madras decisions and we approve of their approach. According to Shri Malhotra, in cases where there is no dispute about the employee’s right which is not denied, he will be entitled to file a suit. Whether or not the right of suit can be claimed by the employee, we are not persuaded on the basis of this argument, to accept the construction canvassed on behalf of the appellant and deny to a dismissed employee the benefit of speedy remedy under s. 33C(2) of the Act. We are aware of a conflict of decisions in some High Courts, on the interpretation of s. 20 read with s. 2(i) of the Minimum Wage,-, Act, .12 of 1948. This aspect was not canvassed before us and, therefore, we should not be deemed to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of either view. We are referring to this aspect only to make it clear that our decision must be) confined to the construction of the provisions of the Act and we must not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the construction of the Minimum Wages Act. In the Madras High Court two single Judges have taken divergent views and tile Kerala High Court agreed with the view that the employees under the Minimum Wages Act need not be, in the employment at the time of their applications under s. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act whereas the Punjab High Court on the other hand agreed with the contrary view of the Madras High Court. The language of s. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act is not completely identical with that of s. 33C(2)of the Act and the relevant clauses of the definition sections in the two statutes are also somewhat differently worded. Without any further discussion on this aspect we are content to observe that this judgment should not be considered as an expression of opinion on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. As a result of the foregoing discussion, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.