Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/584/2011 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 584 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8324 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
YES
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ? NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
=========================================================
DURLABHBHAI
NARANBHAI PARMAR - Appellant(s)
Versus
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SAURABH M PATEL for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 04/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. The
short question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent
Appeal is, “whether the Labour Court can award interest in
proceedings under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(for short, ‘the ID Act’) or not?”
2. The
brief facts of the case are that, the appellant-petitioner was
working as Traffic Controller in S.T. Depot, at Bagasara. On
1.8.1997, a settlement was arrived at and an amount of Rs.33,617/-
was to be paid to the appellant by the respondent. The appellant
attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2003.
3. The
aforesaid amount under the settlement was not paid to the appellant,
therefore, the appellant filed a recovery application in the year
2007 under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act. The Labour Court, by its
order dated 5.11.2009 allowed the application and directed the
respondent to pay the amount of Rs.33,617/-, but did not direct
payment of any interest due to delay in paying the amount under the
settlement which was claimed by the appellant at the rate of 18% per
annum.
4. The
learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the
amount fell due was not paid to the appellant in pursuance of the
settlement on 1.8.1997 and an order was passed by the Labour Court on
5.11.2009. Therefore, the appellant was entitled for interest at the
rate of 18% per annum for the delay in payment of the amount for more
than 12 years. For appreciating the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant, it is necessary to extract Section 33C(1) of the
ID Act as below:
“33C.
Recovery of money due from an employer.– (1) Where any money is
due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or
under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VB the workman himself
or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or,
in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may,
without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application
to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to
him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is
so due, it shall issue certificate for that amount to the Collector
who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear
of land revenue:
Provided
that every such application shall be made within one year from the
date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer:
Provided
further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry
of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is
satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the
application within the said period.”
5. The
aforesaid provision authorises the workman to recover the amount from
the employer which is due to him under a settlement or an award,
provided the application is made within one year from the date on
which the money became due to the workman from the employer. Before
the Labour Court it has been contended by the respondents in the
written statement that they came to know about the amount due only
on 8.1.2007. The amount payable to the appellant was Rs.45,073/- and
out of which, an amount of Rs.23,507/- was paid to the applicant by
the respondent. Therefore, only an amount of Rs. 21,530/- was to be
paid by the respondent to the appellant. It was also mentioned that
there was shortage of funds and the moment the fund is received, the
amount shall be paid to the appellant. However, subsequently, the
respondent had informed the appellant that the total amount to be
paid was Rs.58,470/- and the admitted amount which was liable to be
paid to the appellant at the time of passing of the order by the
Labour Court was Rs.29,517/- as per the details mentioned in the
order of the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court directed the
respondent to pay an amount of Rs.29,517/- within 30 days.
6. We
have examined the provision of Section 33C(1) of the ID Act. We do
not find that the Labour Court, under Section 33C(1) has been
conferred the power to award interest on the amount due. In absence
of any statutory provision and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction
to award any interest to the appellant. Whenever a Legislature
intended that the amount due to a workman be paid along with interest
to avoid delay, in such a situation, the Legislature always takes
care to incorporate such provision with regard to payment of interest
in the Statute itself. But, in Section 33C(1) of the ID Act, there
is no provision for payment of any interest. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the
learned Single Judge is perfectly in accordance with law and
interest could not be awarded even if the amount is paid after
unreasonable delay
7.
However, we are of the opinion that if the amount of Rs.29,517/-
has not yet been paid to the appellant by the respondent, it shall be
paid to the appellant within a period of two months from today.
8. Subject
to the aforesaid observations and directions, this Letters Patent
Appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
(V.M.Sahai,
J.)
Sreeram. (G.B.Shah,
J.)
Top