Allowed

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services and Another v. Presiding Officer and Another

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2021WRIC/66318/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a disputed claim for wages under Section 6H-2/33C-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The impugned orders awarding amounts to a workman and rejecting the employer's recall application were set aside, and the deposited amount was directed to be released to the petitioner employer.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 12.05.2015 and 05.10.2015 are set aside. The deposited amount shall be released in favour of the petitioners-employer forthwith.

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66318 of 2015 Petitioner :- M/S Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services And Another

¶4

Respondent :- Presiding Officer And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra,Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Singh,Shamshuddin Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

The impugned order dated 12.05.2015 was passed by the court below in purported exercise of powers under Section 6H-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(analogous to Section 33C-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947), directing payment of certain amounts claimed by the respondent no. 2-workman. The order was ex-parte to the petitioners-employer and hence the petitioners filed an application for recall of the order which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 05.10.2015. The petitioners have assailed both the orders awarding the amount dated 12.05.2015 as well as the order rejecting the restoration application dated 05.10.2015.

¶7

Shri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the authority below exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating a disputed amount in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court as well as the pronouncements of other constitutional courts.

¶8

Per contra, Shri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, learned

¶9

¶10

counsel holding brief of Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-workman contends that the petitioners-employer could not establish that the amount was disputed before the court below.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The respondent no. 2-workman took out proceedings under Section 6H-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming certain differential wages from February 2007 to December 2012. The petitionersemployer contested claim of the respondent no. 2- workman by filing a counter affidavit. The counter affidavit squarely disputed the claims made by the respondent no.2-workman. The counter affidavit also asserts that all the emoluments to which the respondent no. 2-workman was entitled, had been disbursed to him and the documents in that regard have been appended along with the counter affidavit. The court below has made a finding that the pleadings on behalf of the petitioners-employer were not supported by documents. The petitioner has asserted that the documents to corroborate the pleadings were duly appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitionersemployer before the court below. This fact could not be contested before this Court.

¶13

In wake of preceding discussion, the finding of the

¶14

¶15

labour court that the petitioners-employer had failed to bring the documents supporting their case in the record and hence the pleadings are liable to be disbelieved, is perverse.

¶16

It is evident from the records that the emoluments claimed by the respondent no. 2-workman have been squarely disputed by the petitioners-employer in the pleadings before the court below. According to the petitioners-employer, the respondent no. 2-workman was paid all his entitlements and no further amount was due to him.

¶17

The proceedings under Section 6H-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Section 33C-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are maintainable in case an existing right is sought to be implemented or an award of the labour court is sought to be put into execution. The labour court/competent court cannot decide disputed questions of entitlement in proceedings under Section 6H-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Section 33C-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶18

The narrative shall now be reinforced by good authority in point.

¶19

The ambit of Section 33-C(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is in pari materia

¶20

¶21

with Section 6H-2 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been well settled by good and consistent judicial authorities. Citing multiple authorities will add volume and not weight to the judgement. One judgement would suffice. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razek and another¹ , it was held:

¶22

"12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. 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."

¶23

The law laid down in Ganesh Razek (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts to this case.

¶24

The impugned order passed by the labour court is beyond jurisdiction. The orders dated 12.05.2015 as well as the order dated 05.10.2015 are liable to be set aside and are set aside. The awarded amount which was deposited by the petitioner, shall be released in favour of

¶25

1 2019 (1) SCC 235

¶26

¶27

the petitioners-employer forthwith.

¶28

The writ petition is allowed.

¶29

Order Date :- 10.11.2021 Dhananjai

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services and Another v. Presiding Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services and Another v. Presiding Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M the All India Shri Valmiki Young Man Assoc. and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Rahul Agarwal Sweet Corner and Jalpan and Another Vs Upshram Aayukt Moradabad Range and Others

Ashfak Ahmad Vs Ajeet Singh Tehsildar

Mirza Akhtar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University Agra Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner Agra and 2 Others

Kendriya Vidyalaya Iffco Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and 2 Ors.