Labour Courts Taking 'Considerable Time' To Decide Workman's Money Recovery Plea: Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines Capping Scope Of Inquiry

Taking note of the "considerable time" taken by labour courts in deciding workman's plea for recovery of money due from employer, the Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for expeditious adjudication of applications made by workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde in his order said:

“This Court has also taken note of considerable time taken by the Tribunals or Labour Courts in deciding application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947. It is also noticed that many times enquiry is held without ascertaining the actual disputed claim and the admitted claim. In this process, even compliance of the undisputed terms of the award gets delayed.”

For context Section 33 provides for recovery of money due from an employer. Section 33C(2) states that 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 and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question can be decided by Labour Court within 3 months.

The court said, “In applications/ petitions filed under Section 33 C(2) of the Act, 1947, claiming wages or other monetary benefits under the binding award or settlement, after satisfying itself that there cannot be any dispute relating to maintainability of a petition under Section 33-C(2) of Act, 1947, Tribunal or the Labour Court may adopt the following measures to narrow down the scope of enquiry..."

These measures are:

(a) Ascertain as to whether the respondent has raised a plea of compliance of the award or settlement and if so, whether materials are placed to accept the plea of compliance of the terms of the award or settlement.

(b) If no such plea of compliance of the award or settlement is raised, or even if such plea is raised and no material is placed to accept such a plea relating to compliance, then the Tribunal or the Labour Court may direct the respondent bound by the award or settlement to come out with the calculation of the monetary benefits payable in terms of award or settlement, along with supporting documents justifying such calculations.

(c) Once such calculation is furnished along with supporting documents, and if the petitioner agrees with such calculation, then the Tribunal or the Labour Court shall fix the date for payment and close the proceeding, if no other claim is made.

(d) If the petitioner does not agree with the calculation submitted by the respondent and claims higher monetary benefit, then the dispute should be adjudicated only in respect of difference claimed and the Tribunal or the Labour Court shall direct the respondent by way of interim measure, to pay the undisputed monetary benefits within such time to be fixed (before closure of the proceeding) having regard to the facts of the case.

(e) After ascertaining the undisputed claim, the Tribunal or the Labour Court in appropriate cases, may also direct compliance/satisfaction of such undisputed claim by way of interim measure as a condition precedent to contest the disputed claim and thereafter, has to pass appropriate orders on the disputed claim.

(f) In all proceedings under Section 33C(2) of Act of 1947, it may not be necessary to conduct a trial, and wherever the dispute can be adjudicated based on undisputed documentary evidence, the Tribunal or Labour Court shall endeavour to decide the application without holding a trial.

The court issued the guidelines while allowing a petition filed by one K.M Gurushivakumar, an employee of LIC had sought a direction to the respondents to comply with the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal directing him be reinstated in service and to grant all other consequential reliefs. The petitioner had sought a direction against 1st respondent to pay wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019 as directed in the award passed by the Tribunal, the period from his suspension till reinstatement in service.

The LIC raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition, citing efficacious statutory remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further it was said since the workman is already reinstated and the workman has to approach the Tribunal to execute the award for recovery of wages from the date of the award till his reinstatement.

The workman contended that the petition was maintainable before the court submitting that he has fought a prolonged battle from 2001, and he is yet to receive the benefit of the award, which was passed in 2001 and which attained finality in the Supreme Court in the year 2017.

On going through the records the court noted that the Award for reinstatement in favour of the workman, passed in 2001, and attained finality in 2017, after the dismissal of the Civil Appeal by the Apex Court.

It said that the petitioner/workman was reinstated almost a year and half after dismissal of appeal by the Apex Court. It further noted that the tribunal's award is not fully implemented since the wages payable from the date of the award till 18.02.2019 the date on which he was reinstated, are not paid.

It however observed that ordinarily, the petitioner in whose favour the award is passed has to take recourse under Section 33-C(2) and cannot straight away knock on the doors of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It also however observed that it was also a well-settled that availability of a statutory remedy by itself will not preclude the courts from exercising its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. 

The bench said “If the Court is satisfied that the Award is not implemented, with necessary promptitude, by the State owned entities such as Life Insurance Corporation of India and the like, and do not even come forward to pay as per its calculation the wages/monetary benefits which would be the undisputed liability, at least from the employer's perspective, then the Writ Court can step in to pass appropriate orders to ensure quick implementation of the award.”

It thus observed that despite the remedy under Section 33C(2), it would not be fair to direct the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for an adjudication under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. 

Allowing the petition the bench clarified, “This order should not be construed as having laid down a law that in every case, the award or settlement under the Act, 1947, can be enforced in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such recourse is held permissible in this case as the employer is a statutory corporation and exceptional circumstances are noticed to entertain the writ petition...Thus, respondent No.1-Corporation is directed to pay wages to the petitioner from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement i.e.16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019.”

With respect to payment of interest, the high court noting the "injustice suffered by the workman, on account of ex facie willful default in paying the arrears of wages for the period 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019" directed LIC to pay simple interest @ 6% p.a. from 12.10.2017 till realization of wages payable to the petitioner.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Puttige R Ramesh a/w Advocate Lakshmi S Holla for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate S N Murthy a/w Advocate Rajashekar K for R1, R2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 251

Case Title: K M Gurushivakumar AND LIC Of India & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15186 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order