RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE FROM EMPLOYER UNDER INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTE ACT, 1947

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO:

MS. PALLAVI SHANKAR
(FACULTY OF LABOUR LAW)

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:

VIJAYENDRA KUMAR
SEMESTER IV
ROLL NO. 1773

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PATNA, BIHAR
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am highly elated to have worked on my research topic “RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE FROM
EMPLOYER UNDER INDUSTRIALDISPUTE ACT, 1947” under the guidelines of Ms. Pallavi
Shankar (faculty of labour law). I am very grateful to her for the proper guidance. I would like to
take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regard to him for her exemplary
guidance, valuable feedback and constant encouragement throughout the duration of the project.
Her valuable suggestions were of immense help throughout my project work. Her perceptive
criticism kept me working to make this project in a much better way. Working under her was an
extremely knowledgeable experience for me.

I would also like to thank all my friends and my seniors. Apart from all these I would like to give
special regard to the librarian and other staffs of the library of my university who made a relevant
effort regarding to provide the materials to my topic and also assisting me.

Finally, I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that
helped me out at every stage of my project.
 DECLARATION BY THE STUDENT

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.B.A.,LL.B. (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“Recovery of money due from employer under IDA, 1947” submitted at Chanakya National
Law University, Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of
Ms. Pallavi Shankar.

I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma and I am fully
responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

VIJAYENDRA KUMAR

ROLL NO. : 1773

COURSE: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

 CONTENTS

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Difference between 33-C(1) and 33-C(2) .................................................................................................................... 8
Prosecution of the Employer for non-payment of dues under the Act, Settlement or Award ...................................... 9
Power of Execution ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Advantages of Sec 33-C(2) ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Scope of Sec 33 C(2) ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Supreme Court observation for recovery of money due from employer under IDA,1947 ............................................ 15
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS.................................................................................................................................. 18
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

• To know about the process of recovery.

• To know about the recovery of money due from employer under IDA, 1947.

HYPOTHESIS
• The researcher presumes recovery of money due from employer under IDA, 1947 is
arbitrary.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Doctrinal method- For the purpose of fulfilment of ther project research is based on case- law,
statutes and other legal sources . It is concerned with legal propositions and doctrines. It is
research into the law and legal concepts.

SOURCES OF DATA

Primary Sources – Case Laws, Statutes, Legal Documents etc.

Secondary Sources – Books, websites, journals, articles, magazines etc.

LIMITATION
Paucity of time- Due to paucity of time the quality and the quantity of the research project may
suffer.

Limited time for making the research paper alsp was a factor for result of such project.
 INTRODUCTION

Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under
the provisions of 154[Chapter VA or Chapter VB] the workman himself or any other person
authorized by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his
assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the
appropriate government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate
government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the
Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

Recovery of money due from employer is dealt in the section 33(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947.

33C. Recovery of money due from an employer

(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or
under the provisions of [Chapter VA or Chapter VB] the workman himself or any other person
authorized by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his
assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the
appropriate government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate
government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the
Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:

PROVIDED that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the
money became due to the workman from the employer:

PROVIDED FURTHER, that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the
said period of one year, if the appropriate government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient
cause for not making the application with in the said period.

(2) 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 may,
subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be
specified in this behalf by the appropriate government 116[within a period not exceeding three
months:]

6/29
PROVIDED that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or
expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such
further period as he may think fit.

(3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so
thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary,
submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after
considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case.

(4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate government and
any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-
section (1).

(5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any
money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as
may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made
on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen.

Explanation: In this section "Labour Court" includes any court constituted under any law relating
to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State.

The amount due to the workmen, a settlement, is pre-determined and ascertained or can be arrived
at by any arithmetical calculation or simplicitor verification and The only inquiry that is required
to be made is whether it is due to the workman or not, recourse to summary proceedings under
Section 33C (1) is not only appropriate but also desirable to prevent harassment to the workmen1

7/29
 Difference between 33-C(1) and 33-C(2)

Section 33C is in the nature of execution proceedings. Section 33C (1) and (2), the legislature has
provided a speedy remedy to the workmen to have the benefits. The distinction between 33-C(1)
and 33-C (2) lies mainly in procedural aspect and not with any substantive rights of workmen. 33-
C (1) comes into play when on the application of a workman himself or any other person assignee
or heirs in case of his death, the Government is satisfied that the amounts so claimed are due and
payable to that workman.
On that satisfaction being arrived at, the Government can initiate action under this sub-section for
recovery of the amount provided the amount is a determined one and requires no `adjudication'.
The Government does not have the power to determine the amount due to any workman under 33-
C (1) and that determination can only be done by the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) or in a
reference under Section 10(1) of the Act.
After determination made by Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) the amount so determined by the Labour
Court, can be recovered through the summary and speedy procedure provided by 33-C(1).

33-C (1) does not control or affect the ambit and operation of 33-C(2) which is wider in scope.

The rights conferred under Section 33C (2) exist in addition to any other mode of recovery which
the workman has under the law.

______________________________________________________

1
M/S. AGENCIA E. SEQUEIRA M/S. FABRIL GASOSA Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & OTHERS 1997
(3) SCC 150

8/29
 Prosecution of the Employer for non-payment of dues under the Act,
Settlement or Award

Sec 29. Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is
binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, [and where the breach is a continuing one, with a
further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach
continues after the conviction for the first] and the Court trying the offence, if it fines the offender,
may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realized from him shall be paid, by way of
compensation, to any person who, in its opinion, has been injured by such breach.

Sec 31. Penalty for other offences

(1) Any employer who contravenes the provisions of section 33 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both
(2) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if no
other penalty is elsewhere provided by or under this Act for such contravention, be punishable
with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.
Sec 32. Offence by companies, etc.
Where a person committing an offence under this Act is a company, or other body corporate, or an
association of persons (whether incorporated or not), every director, manager, secretary, agent or
other officer or person concerned with the management thereof shall, unless he proves that the
offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence.

9/29
 POWER OF EXECUTION
Section 11 (8) :-
• "Every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or
Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid
down for execution of orders and decree of a civil court under Order 21 of the code of civil
procedure, 1908.

• The Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be shall transmit any
award, order or settlement to a civil court having jurisdiction and such civil courts shall
execute the award, order or settlements as if it were a decree passed by it.

10/29
 ADVANTAGES OF SEC 33-C(2)

1. No limitation- - Indian Limitation Act is that it only deals with applications to courts, and
that the Labour court is not a court within the Indian Limitation Act, 1963

2. No court fees

3. Legal heir / ex-workmen can also file

4. Joint petition in respect of more than one petitioner

5. Material benefits can also be computed in terms of money.

6. No technicalities

Computation in terms of money of any benefit is covered by Sec 33-C(2) The first part is
concerned with the money claim simpliciter and the second part speaks about computation in
terms of money of any benefit to which the workman is entitled.2

____________________________________
2
Nityananda M. Joshi & Ors. Vs L.I.C 1969 SCC (2) 199

11/29
12/29
 SCOPE OF SEC 33 C(2)

On a fair and reasonable construction of 33C (2)it is clear that if a workman's right' to receive
the benefit is disputed. that may have to be determined by the Labour Court.
the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right
to receive that benefit.
If the said right is not disputed, nothing more needs to be done.
Labour Court can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in terms of money;the Labour
Court is given the power to allow an individual workman to execute or implement his existing
individual rights-
1. It is virtually exercising execution powers
2. It is well settled that it is open to the Executing Court to interpret the decree for the purpose of
execution.

The executing Court cannot go behind the decree, nor can it add to or subtract from the
provision of the decree.
These limitations apply also to the Labour Court;like the executing Court, the Labour Court
would also be competent to interpret the award or settlement on which a workman bases his claim
u/s 33C (2).

For the purpose of making the necessary determination under s. 33C (2),it would be open to the
Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workman's right rests.but if the
said right is disputed the Labour Court must deal with that question and decide whether the
workman has the right to receive the benefit only if the Labour Court answers this point in favour
of the workman the next question of making necessary computation can arise.3

The benefit enforced under Section 33- C(2) of the Act is a pre-existing benefit or one flowing
from a pre-existing right. The difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and
the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital.
The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33-C(2) of
the Act while the latter does not. 4
_____________________________________

3
Namor Ali Choudhury And Others Vs. Central Inland Water Sport 1977 (4) SCC 575
4
The Central Bank Of India Ltd Vs P.S. Rajagopalan AIR 1964 SC 743

13/29
If approval u/s 33(2)(b) is not given, nothing more is required to be done by the employee, as it
will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed.
Consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all
the benefits available. This being the position there is no need of a separate or specific order for
his reinstatement.5

Mere denial by employer will not oust jurisdiction

the Labour Court clearly had jurisdiction to decide whether such a right did or did not exist when
dealing with the application under that provision, and that the mere denial of that by the company
could not take away its jurisdiction.
We hold that in this case it was competent to the Labour Court to decide whether the case before it
was a case of retrenchment compensation or the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 25FFF was attracted on
closure of the establishment.6

A claim for bonus in the context of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act can be raised only by
raising an industrial dispute. It cannot be raised by way of an execution application.7

The difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which
is considered, just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour
Court exercising powers under Section 33C(2) of the Act while the latter does not. 8

Gratuity claim u/s 33C(2) not permitted

Where a serious dispute exists in regard to the basis of a claim for payment of gratuity, no
proceedings will lie under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.9
_________________________________________

5
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs Brijpal Singh 2005 (8) SCC 58
6
Jaipur Zila ShahaKari Boomi Vikas Bank Ltd Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma 2002 (2) SCC 244
7
Sahu Minerals & Properties Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors. 1976 (3) SCC 93

8 M/S. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Deputy Labour Commr. & Ors.2007 (5) SCC 281

9 State Of Punjab Vs. Labour Court, Jullundur & Ors 1980 (1) SCC 4

14/29
SUPREME COURT OBSERVATION FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE FROM
EMPLOYER UNDER IDA,1947

In a landmark case of Vijaya Bank vs. Shyamal kumar lodh1 in the Supreme Court of India, C.K.
Prasad, J. states-

From a plain reading of Section 33C(2) it is evident that money due to a workman has to be
decided by such Labour Court “as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate
Government.” Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inter alia confers power to the
appropriate Government for constitution of one or more Labour courts for the adjudication of
industrial disputes. It also prescribes qualification for appointment as Presiding Officer of a
Labour Court. Explanation appended to Section 33C of the Act provides to include any Court
constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in
any State as Labour Court. The underlying object behind inserting explanation seems to be
varying qualification prescribed for appointment of Presiding Officers of Labour Court by
different State enactments. The Parliament took note of the fact while inserting explanation that
there are different kinds of Labour Courts constituted under Industrial Disputes Act and State Acts
and a question may arise whether a Labour Court constituted under Acts, Central or State could
entertain a claim made under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

An explanation is appended ordinarily to a section to explain the meaning of words contained in

that section. In view of the explanation aforesaid Labour Court shall include any Court constituted
under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State.
Money due to an employee under Section 33C(2) is to be decided by “Labour Court as may be
specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government”. Therefore, the expression “Labour Court”
in Section 33C(2) has to be given an extended meaning so as to include Court constituted under
any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State. It
widens the choice of appropriate Government and it can specify not only the Labour Courts
constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but such other Courts constituted
under any other law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any
State.

1 10
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4211 & 4212 OF 2007

15/29
The power to adjudicate money claim is to the Labour Court “as may be specified in this behalf by
the appropriate Government”. Every word used by the Legislature carries meaning and therefore
effort has to be made to give meaning to each and every word used by it. A construction brushing
aside words in a Statute is not a sound principle of construction. The Court avoids a construction,
if reasonably permissible on the language, which renders an expression or part of the Statute
devoid of any meaning or application. Legislature never waste its words or says anything in vain
and a construction rejecting the words of a Statute is not resorted to, excepting for compelling
reasons. There does not exist any reason, much less compelling reason to adopt a construction,
which renders the words “as may be specified in this behalf” used in Section 33C(2) of the Act as
redundant. These words have to be given full meaning. These words in no uncertain terms indicate
that there has to be specification by the appropriate Government that a particular court shall have
jurisdiction to decide money claim under Section 33C(2) of the Act and it is that court alone
which shall have the jurisdiction. Appropriate Government can specify the court or courts by
general or special order in its discretion. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show
that the Labour Court at Dibrugarh has been specified by the appropriate Government. This
question in our opinion has squarely been answered by this Court in the case of Treogi Nath
(Supra). True it is that rendering this decision, this Court did not consider the explanation
appended to Section 33C of the Act, as the lis pertained to period earlier to amendment but in
view of what we have said above, excepting the widening of choice pertaining to Courts,
explanation does not dispense with the requirement of specification of court by appropriate
Government.

If any dispute arises regarding the subsistence allowance payable to a workman under sub-section
(1), the workman or the employer concerned may refer the dispute to the Labour Court,
constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the industrial establishment wherein such workman is employed is situate and the
Labour Court to which the dispute is so referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of
being heard, decide the dispute and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties. (3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where provisions
relating to payment of subsistence allowance under any other law for the time being in force in
any State are more beneficial than the provisions of this section, the provisions of such other law
shall be applicable to the payment of subsistence allowance in that State.”

From a plain reading of the Section 10A(2) of the aforesaid Act it is evident that the Labour Court
constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the establishment is situated, has jurisdiction to decide any dispute regarding subsistence
allowance. Here in the present case undisputedly dispute pertains to subsistence allowance and the

16/29
Labour Court where the workman had brought the action has been constituted under Section 7 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further the appellant bank is situated within the local limits
of its jurisdiction. The workman had, though, chosen to file application under Section 33C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act but that in our opinion shall not denude jurisdiction to the Labour
Court, if it otherwise possesses jurisdiction. Incorrect label of the application and mentioning
wrong provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the Court of its jurisdiction. Relief
sought for, if falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, it cannot be thrown out on the ground of its
erroneous label or wrong mentioning of provision.

17/29
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under
the provisions of the workman himself or any other person authorized by him in writing in this
behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to
any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate government for the recovery
of the money due to him, and if the appropriate government is satisfied that any money is so due,
it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in
the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

If any dispute arises regarding the subsistence allowance payable to a workman under sub-section
(1), the workman or the employer concerned may refer the dispute to the Labour Court,
constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the industrial establishment wherein such workman is employed is situate and the Labour Court to
which the dispute is so referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide
the dispute and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties. (3) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where provisions relating to
payment of subsistence allowance under any other law for the time being in force in any State are
more beneficial than the provisions of this section, the provisions of such other law shall be
applicable to the payment of subsistence allowance in that State.

18/29
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES

• The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

• The Constitution of India, 1950

• Labour Manual

WEBSITES

• www.merriam-webster.com

• www.kanoon.nearlaw.com

• www.lawctopus.com

• www.indiankanoon.org

• www.shareyouressays.com

19/29