Dismissed

Bhudutt v. P.O., Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-Ii, Faridabad

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Apr 2014CWP/16149/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge against a Labour Court order that rejected the petitioner's claim for arrears of increments under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held the petitioner was not a 'workman' due to his managerial role and salary level, making the claim time-barred without proper proof.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine as the petitioner was not a 'workman' under the Act.

Bhudutt Vs P.O., Industrial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 16149 of 2013 Date of decision: 07.04.2014

Bhudutt

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad and others

¶7

...Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) vide which, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') was dismissed.

¶12

The reasoning that prevailed with the Labour Court, Faridabad was that as per the case of the petitioner himself, he was working as Branch Manager and drawing salary of 8,650/- and, therefore, was working in supervisory capacity and did not fall within the definition of workman as per the un-amended provisions of the Act. Finding was also recorded that the claim of arrears of the increments and how the figure of 1,15,000/became due, was never proved and even the primary duty was upon the petitioner himself. The application was also held to be time barred having been filed on 06.11.2007 while arrears were claimed from 1996 to 2004, after a period of 3 years apart from the fact that there was an objection by Gupta Shivani the Audit also to the arrears as per the workman evidence of WW-2 Shri 2014.04.11 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶13

CWP No. 16149 of 2013

¶14

-2-

¶15

Niwas.

¶16

A perusal of the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act would go on to show that the petitioner himself had pleaded that he was Accountant-cum-Branch Manager and claimed annual increment arrears from 1996 to 2004 whereas admittedly, the petitioner had retired on 30.06.2005. The petitioner during his service period had never agitated regarding his claims which were falling due annually to him. Nothing has been pleaded specifically as to how he is entitled to the said increments. Finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that he has not been able to prove on what account the sum was due. The Labour Court has also taken into account the fact that once the petitioner was himself working in a managerial/supervisory capacity, he would not be entitled to claim himself to be a workman as per the definition under the Act since he was also drawing salary of 8,650/- per month, which was more than the salary of 1,600/- per month as per the un-amended provisions of the Act. Once the petitioner was not a workman and he was doing the above said duties, the Labour Court thus would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the said issue. The order passed is well justified and counsel for the petitioner could not show anything to the contrary to plead that the order is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is without any basis and the same is dismissed in limine.

¶18

07.04.2014 shivani

¶19

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶20

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.11 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Bhudutt v. P.O., Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-Ii, Faridabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhudutt v. P.O., Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-Ii, Faridabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vice Chancellor Punjabi University Patiala and Ors. Vs Brij Rani and Ors.

Suraj Bhan and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and or.S

Kundan Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Pb and Ors.

Managing Director & Anr. Vs Presiding Officer Ind Tribunal & Anr.

District Red Cross Society Ambala City Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr.

Simran Palsingh Vs Punjab Technical University & Ors.