MANU/SC/0150/2022

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 813 of 2022

Decided On: 04.02.2022

Appellants: Bombay Chemical Industries
Vs.
Respondent: Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 33482 of 2018, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the Appellant herein and has confirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court IV, U.P., Kanpur Nagar, Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the original writ Petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

2. That Respondent No. 2 herein moved an application before the Labour Court Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2012 demanding the difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012. The said application was contested by the Appellant herein denying any relationship of employee-employer. It was the categorical stand of the Appellant that Respondent No. 2 herein was never engaged by it. Before the Labour Court Respondent No. 2 herein relied upon the documents exhibit W-1 to W-6 in support of his case that he had worked in the establishment as a salesman. That by order dated 28.11.2017 the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court allowed the said application and directed the Appellant herein to pay the difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012 as claimed in the application.

2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Appellant herein preferred a writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition which has given rise to the present appeal.

3. Shri Vishal Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by the Labour Court Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3.1. It is submitted by Shri Yadav appearing on behalf of the Appellant that the High Court ought to have appreciated that when there was a serious issue raised with respect to the employer-employee relationship between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 and that it was seriously disputed that Respondent No. 2 was at any point of time in employment as a salesman, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained/allowed the application Under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the same could have been decided in the reference Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is therefore submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court is completely without jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court ought to have set aside the same. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr., MANU/SC/0532/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 235 and Union of India and Anr. v. Kankuben (Dead) By Lrs........