JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. The management of Kamalam Transport, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in C.P. No. 206 of 1990, dated September 26, 1994, directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards security deposit to the first respondent-workman, has filed the above writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, his concern is a proprietary one and he is the proprietor of the same. The concern is carrying on transport business. The first respondent joined the petitioner concern on February 4, 1983. The petitioner concern is not in the habit of receiving any security deposit for the appointment of any employee in their concern even for regular appointment. The first respondent had created a fabricated receipt and had received the signature from the petitioner for a receipt to be sent to one of its customers. Thus, the first respondent had committed forgery and had claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/-on false and frivolous basis. In the said circumstance, the first respondent filed a claim petition on the file of the second respondent as C.P. No. 206 of 1990. The second respondent after hearing both parties, passed an order on September 26, 1994, allowing the claim petition. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, due to the death of proprietor of the petitioner concern, namely S, Vellingiri, his legal heirs were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5, to pursue the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first respondent.
5. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petition filed by the first respondent claiming Rs. 5,000 towards security deposit under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) is maintainable and the Labour Court is justified in ordering the same.
6. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent herein workman was examined as WW 1 and produced documents Exhibits W1 to W8 in support of his claim. On the other hand, on the side of the management one Vellingiri was examined as M.W 1 and marked Exhibits Ml to M6 in support of their defence. The Labour Court after holding that in the light of the admission of the signature found in Exhibit W7, which is the receipt issued by the management for payment of Rs. 5,000 towards security deposit and in the light of the compromise memo, wherein the right of the first respondent regarding his other claims preserved, passed an order directing the petitioner herein to pay the said amount of Rs. 5,000 to the first respondent-workman.
7. Sri R. Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the provisions of Sections 33-C(1) and 33-C(2) of the Act would contend that in the light of the stand taken by the management, the amount cannot be claimed by way of petition filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. We are concerned with Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C. As per that Sub-section, 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, an application has to be made under this Act and the same is to be decided by the Labour Court having jurisdiction. Sri R. Viduthalai, has also heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak . He very much relied on the following conclusion of their Lordships, in Para. 12, at p. 400 of LLJ:
“The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court’s power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.”
8. It is true that the claim regarding security deposit has not been earlier adjudicated by the Labour Court or any other forum. However it is seen from the materials placed before the Labour Court that in respect of payment of Rs. 5,000 towards security deposit, a receipt had been issued by the management under Exhibit W7. It is not disputed that the signature found in the said receipt is that of the proprietor of the management concern (Sri Vellingiri). Though it is stated that since the first respondent alone was in charge of the affairs of the concern, it was he who prepared the receipt. Here again, it is to be noted that it was one Natarajan, who prepared the receipts to be supplied to their customers. In the light of the above factual position, particularly in view of the fact that Exhibit W7 receipt contains the signature of the proprietor of the concern and the same having been typed as security deposit paid by the first respondent herein, I am of the view that though both parties had compromised the industrial dispute raised earlier even in 1990, apart from the amount mentioned and received, in the compromise memo there is a clause to the effect that the said compromise is without prejudice to other dues to the workman.
9. Taking note of all the above aspects and in view of the factual position, namely Exhibit W7 and the admission of the signature therein, I am of the view that the first respondent is filly justified in filing petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, and the same has been rightly considered by the Labour Court. I do not find any error or infirmity therein. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
10. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.