Labour Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) Limited to Executing Pre-existing Rights, Not Determining New Claims: Gujarat HC

Gujarat High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker upheld the Labour Court's rejection of a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that without a pre-existing right, claims for additional wages, bonus, and rent were not maintainable under this provision. It explained that Labour Courts cannot adjudicate new claims under Section 33(C)(2), as their jurisdiction is similar to that of an executing court. Background Jayanti Ishwarbhai Parmar was employed by Sabbir Mohammed Zubair since February 2002, until he was terminated in December 2013. He challenged his termination before the Labour Court, which partially allowed his claim. It directed Sabbir Mohammed Zubair to pay him 25% of his wages from May 31, 2014, to May 31, 2016, along with other benefits. Following this, Parmar filed a recovery application before the Anand Labour Court, seeking Rs. 3,03,750. This included back wages, bonus, holiday wages, salary increments, and rent. However, the Labour Court rejected this application on the ground that there was no pre-existing right for the claimed benefits. Aggrieved, Parmar approached the Gujarat High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Arguments Jayanti Parmar argued that the Labour Court had already granted his client entitlement to wages and benefits. He submitted that Sabbir Mohammed Zubair had not fulfilled the obligation to pay all components of the awarded benefits, which included unpaid salary for holidays, annual increments, and other allowances. Citing K.S. Ravindran v. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 7 SCC 222, he asserted that once termination is held illegal, the employee is entitled to all dues. He also referred to Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 SCR (2) 271, arguing that denying minimum wages would violate fundamental rights under Article 23 of the Constitution. Sabbir Mohammed Zubair, the respondent, did not appear before the court, and no arguments were recorded. Court's Reasoning Firstly, the court examined the nature of a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It reiterated that this provision was meant for enforcing pre-existing rights and benefits, and not for adjudicating new claims. Citing Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, (2022) 5 SCC 629, it noted that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under this section is akin to that of an executing court and cannot be used to determine fresh entitlements. Secondly, the court found that there was no specific award directing Sabbir Mohammed Zubair to pay the additional wages, bonus, or rent claimed by Jayanti Parmar. It held that these claims went beyond what was explicitly awarded by the Labor Court, Anand. The court concluded that since there was no pre-existing right to these amounts, the application was rightly rejected. Thirdly, the court distinguished the cases cited by Jayanti Parmar. It held that K.S. Ravindran was not applicable because it involved a scenario where reinstatement and back wages were granted by a High Court. It explained that the present case involved only a partial grant of back wages, with no direction for additional payments. It further held that Sanjit Roy was inapplicable, as it pertained to forced labour and minimum wages, and not a recovery application under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the court dismissed the petition. It affirmed the Labour Court's order. Decided on: 13-01-2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:2680 | Jayanti Ishwarbhai Parmar v. Sabbir Mohammed Zubair Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. U.T. MishraCase Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 13 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Labour Court's Jurisdiction Under Section 33(C)(2) Limited to Executing Pre-existing Rights, Not Determining New Claims: Gujarat HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags