TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was excluded because the workmen could have proceeded under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; (ii) Whether Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issue (i): Whether the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was excluded because the workmen could have proceeded under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Analysis: The remedy under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was held to be directed to claims involving disputes as to the rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, or rates for work on days of rest. The provisions of Sections 13(1) and 14(1) of that Act showed that the statutory forum was intended to secure compliance with prescribed wage rates, not to provide a general machinery for recovery of amounts already due at agreed rates. On the facts, there was no dispute as to the rates between employer and workmen. The controversy was only whether the amounts claimed were payable, and such claims could not be said to fall within Section 20(1) so as to exclude recourse to Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Conclusion: The jurisdiction of the Labour Court was not excluded by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the objection to maintainability failed.
Issue (ii): Whether Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Analysis: The residuary Article 137 was construed in the light of the earlier interpretation placed on Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court held that the residuary article in the Limitation Act governed applications to courts and not to bodies such as an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court, which are not courts and are not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure. The change in the language of the 1963 Act, including its extended long title and altered definitions, did not justify extending Article 137 to applications under Section 33C(2). The prior view that no limitation was prescribed for such applications was reaffirmed.
Conclusion: Article 137 did not apply to applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the limitation objection failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were liable to fail in their entirety, as neither the alleged exclusion of jurisdiction nor the plea of limitation displaced the Labour Court's power to compute the workmen's dues.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is confined to disputes about wage rates, while Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to applications made to courts and not to Labour Courts under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
TaxTMI 
