Scope of Section 33-C(2) ID Act not restricted to ambiguous awards, Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that absence of a dispute with respect to the amount payable to a workman in an award passed by a Labour Court, does not preclude him from moving an execution application for such an award under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947..The Court observed that the language of the Section 33-C(2) is “indicative of the fact that it is not restricted to only those cases where there is a dispute about how much money is payable or its computation thereunder.”.The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Sanjeev Narula in an appeal against the order of the Single Judge. The Single Judge had upheld an order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the appellant workman’s execution petition filed under Section 33-C..The Labour Court had passed an award in favour of the appellant workman, directing the respondent management to reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits within thirty days from the publication of the award. The liquidated amount of the award was computed at Rs.70,48,146, which was undisputed..The appellant then filed an execution petition under Section 33-C, but without specifying whether it was under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the provision. The said application was filed after the period of limitation, as specified under sub-section (1) of Section 33-C..Section 33-C of the Act deals with recovery of money due from an employer under a settlement or an award. A workman can move an application under Section 33-C(1) before the Appropriate Government for enforcement of the award when there is no dispute as to the computation of amount payable under it. Section 33-C(2) states that an application can be moved before a Labour Court for enforcement of an award when the money due is not specified or not capable of being computed on a reading of the award..Thereafter, the appellant filed an application stating that his plea was under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, and not Section 33-C (1). He further prayed that if the Court was of the view that Section 33-C (1) was applicable to the present case, then the delay in filing the execution petition may be condoned..Stating that since the award was “clear and unambiguous”, the Labour Court held that an execution application could be moved only under Section 33-C (1) of the Act before the appropriate Government, and dismissed the plea..The said view was upheld by the Single Judge Bench in appeal..The judgement passed by the Division Bench, however, establishes that the Act is “a beneficial piece of legislation and has to be interpreted as such.” Therefore in spite of the award being clear and unambiguous, an “additional avenue” under Section 33-C (2) of the Act is available to the appellant workman for enforcement of the award..“Although a plain reading of Section 33-C (2) of the Act might seem to support such interpretation, given the object and purpose of the Act, and considering that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, such an interpretation would be too restrictive and would defeat the legislative intent.”.The Court explained that to invoke Section 33-C(2), any of the following conditions are to be satisfied:. i) A workman is entitled to receive money from an employer;ii) to receive any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money;iii) a question arises as to the money due or about the amount at which the benefit should be computed..The conditions at (i), (ii) and (iii) above do not have to exist cumulatively for a workman’s application to be maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the Court held..Furthermore, since there is no express period of limitation provided for filing such applications under Section 33-C(2), a reasonable period of three years after the conclusion of the proceedings in the Labour Court could be deemed to be the period of limitation for the Section, the Court ruled..The Court thus decreed,.“Consequently, this Court sets aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Labour Court and restores the application of the Workman to the file of the Labour Court for further proceedings in accordance with law….The appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant within four weeks.”.The appellant was represented by Advocates Pankaj Vivek, Shashank Shekhar Jha and Bidya Rani..The respondent management was represented by Advocate Asim Naeem..Read the Judgment: