Skip to content


M.S.N.S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli Vs. K. Rajaram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit App. No. 133 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Mad332; (1960)ILLJ336Mad
ActsPayment of Wages Act - Sections 15; Industrial Disputes Act - 33-C(2)
AppellantM.S.N.S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli
RespondentK. Rajaram and anr.
Excerpt:
.....to entertain the petition as the matter really fell within the province of section 15 of the payment of wages act (iv of 1936) and the workman should have moved he authority specified in the section for the relief he sought,; held, that the labour court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition-section 33 (c) 2) of he industrial disputes act (xiv of 1947) is wide enough to cover a case where the award of a labour court merely gave a benefit to the workman, namely the benefit of back wages without specifying the amount the workman became entitled to receive from the employer, the actual determination of which could be done by the labour court. even otherwise though the term back wage is used to describe the benefit being awarded to the workman who has been without..........september, 1954 in and by which the management was directed to reinstate the workman with back wages the contention was that the matter really fell within the province of sec. 15 of the payment of wages act and the workman should have moved the authority specified in that section for the relief he sought and therefore, the labour court had no jurisdiction in the matter. in our opinion the contention cannot be accepted for two reasons, firstly, we think that sec. 33-c(2) of the industrial disputes act is wide enough to cover a case like this where the award of a labour court merely gave a benefit to the workman, namely, the benefit of back wages, without specifying the amount the workman had become entitled to receive from the employer. this benefit is certainly one in respect of.....
Judgment:
(1) The only point pressed upon us by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the workman for fixing the amount payable to him as back wages in consequence of the award of the Labour Court dated 11th September, 1954 in and by which the management was directed to reinstate the workman with back wages The contention was that the matter really fell within the province of Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and the workman should have moved the authority specified in that section for the relief he sought and therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. In our opinion the contention cannot be accepted for two reasons, Firstly, we think that Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is wide enough to cover a case like this where the award of a Labour Court merely gave a benefit to the workman, namely, the benefit of back wages, without specifying the amount the workman had become entitled to receive from the employer. This benefit is certainly one in respect of which the worker could apply to the labour court for determination of the actual amount. Secondly we think that though the term 'back wages' is used to describe the benefit being awarded to the workman who has been without employment till the reinstatement, the claim would not be a claim to wages which fell within the scope of the Payment of Wages Act. We therefore hold that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the workman. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

(2) Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //