M.C. Hissar v. P.O.L.C. & ANR

 
        
    



!"

 #$%$!& '

()$*

+,

 ./&$#$( *
!00$ $%% ) 1)!/21 $% ) %$3 &  $$!& ) 5 )%/% ) %$3$&2 ""$# ), 7!/)
!/), $%% )

&3

&!1 )44  %(!&3 &%
.'

 86 .4 9
 9 .

 9

 

         9 .

 9

4 6





  

 
&'(    

 

.   $  /" # 0(  2 

 * 

1  
2 3

 *

 )    * 
2 3

  1



 * 

 

  2

 
&'(  .2  * *  5 !!& 66!7&

  '  "8 *  5 "'!&'!!7&

 2 ! ! "86 

 * *   !

""#
&'(





 

9   2  '!:

2  


&'(  2 

*     )  

  )  2  )  )1

 '

 

  

     

)  * ;



  2

 

 *   ) 

* 

!

 2  ) 2

#    

 <0)

2

 

  ) 

 * ) %    2 )    )

  

<0)

2




 

     
      

  !   "   #$ $ "  



    2 2)

   2

& "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 certain benefit is disputed, there being, no earlier adjudication or recognition 5

(1968) 1 LLJ 589 : 38 Comp Cas 400 (SC) thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a 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 tile 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."

"

 

   2

   2

*   2 )   4 )  %  



 

  2   4) 

*   

 ) !

=



) 
&'(   

)* 

 

!

 

.  

  2

   2



 



   ) 2 ()$*

+,

 9 .

 9

harsha  9 17  > 9 )