1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  No(s). 7218 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).19370 OF 2019)

RAI BAHADUR NARAIN SINGH SUGAR MILLS LTD.          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

MANGEY RAM                                         Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.S. BOPANNA, J.:

(1) Leave granted.

(2) The Appellant-Sugar Mills is before us assailing the Order

dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Labour Court in Misc.Case NO.42

of 2011 while taking note of a petition filed by the respondent

under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3) The genesis of the case for the said petition being filed

under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court

is that Labour Court at the first instance in the proceedings

bearing Adjudication Case NO.64/1996 had passed an award and

ordered that the termination order dated 07.12.1994 against the

respondent by the appellant herein was not proper and legal.

Accordingly,  it  was  ordered  that  the  respondent  herein  be

reinstated into service during the up-coming crushing season.

As far as payment of back-wages is concerned, it was quantified

at Rs.5,000/-, as compensation.  With regard to the intervening

wages  during  which  the  writ  petition  was  pending,  it  was

2

ordered that the respondent herein is relegated to the employer

before whom he shall make a representation in that regard.  The

said  order  insofar  as  the  said  direction  has  attained  the

finality.

(4) The respondent instituted a petition under Section 33-C(2)

of I.D.Act seeking for payment of wages subsequent to the Award

dated  10.06.1997  since  reinstatement  was  not  made.   Labour

Court vide Order dated 06.08.2011 allowed the said application

and directed the appellant herein to pay the wages from the

date  of  Award  i.e.  10.06.1997  up  to  the  date  on  which

respondent joined the service.

(5) The contention on behalf of the respondent is that the

said amount as ordered by the Labour Court is payable. However,

what we notice is that the appellant herein had approached the

High  Court  of  Uttaranchal  at  Nainital  in  Civil  Misc.

Application NO.4169 of 2001 (Old No.6958 of 1998) assailing the

Award dated 10.06.1997.  In the said proceedings, the High

Court  having  taken  note  of  the  order  of  the  Labour  Court

confirmed  the  Award  dated  10.06.1997  insofar  as  the

reinstatement is concerned.

(6) In that view the only question for consideration is with

regard to the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the

Labour Court dated 06.08.2011 under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.

Act quantifying and directing payment of amount subsequent to

the date of the Award dated 10.06.1997.  In that regard we have

already taken note that the matter was pending before the High

Court subsequent to the Award dated 10.06.1997 and the High

3

Court while ultimately disposing of the writ petition had in

that regard directed that the payment of the wages for the

period when the writ petition was pending is a matter to be

considered by the employer.

(7) Pursuant to the Award dated 10.06.1997 respondent has been

reinstated  by  order  dated  26.07.2005.   The  respondent  made

representation  before  the  appellant  claiming  wages  for  the

intervening period.  By order dated 26.07.2005 the appellant

rejected  claim  of  the  respondent  for  the  wages  for  the

intervening period on the principle of ‘no work, no pay’.  The

same would stand answered by the order of the High Court in

C.M.A. No.4169/2001.

(8) When the matter of payment of wages from 1995 to 2005 was

left to the decision of the employer, the wages as ordered by

the Labour Court in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of

the I.D. Act would not be justified.  Since the High Court had

directed  that  the  appellant  herein  shall  consider  the

representation  of  the  respondent  for  wages  for  intervening

period, the consideration in that regard was necessary to be

made by the appellant and the order of the Labour Court dated

06.08.2011 is unsustainable.  In Municipal Corporation of Delhi

v. Ganesh Razak and Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 235, it was held by this

Court as under:

“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

4

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 the 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.”

Likewise the scope of Section 6(H)(2) of the U.P. Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is also limited to calculation of monetary

benefits where right has already been adjudicated.

(9) However, at this stage since sufficient time has elapsed

an exercise to remit the matter to the employer to reconsider

these aspects of the matter would not be necessary as we are

informed that pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court

an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited as an interim measure

pending consideration on these aspects and the respondent has

already withdrawn a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) out

of the same.

5

(10) Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct that the

said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) withdrawn by

the respondent herein would stand in compliance of all wages

that are payable to the respondent subsequent to the Award

dated 10.06.1997 till actual reinstatement and the matter shall

rest at that.  The amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs)

which is available in deposit shall therefore be withdrawn by

the appellant herein.  Since the deposit before the Labour

Court was credited in a fixed deposit to enure interest, the

entire accrued interest on the deposit shall be paid to the

respondent and only the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs) shall be returned to the appellant herein.

(11) The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

(12) At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the respondent has been terminated subsequently and he has

raised a dispute with regard to the same.  It is made clear

that the same would be considered and decided separately and

all  the  contentions  are  left  open  to  be  raised  at  the

appropriate stage and the decision in the case on hand shall

not be an impediment for consideration of the rights of the

parties.  

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 12, 2019.