Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Limited Jurisdiction Confirmed: Labour Court to Adjudicate Subsistence Allowance Dispute</h1> The Supreme Court affirmed that the Labour Court at Dibrugarh had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for subsistence allowance under Section 10A(2) of ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted by the State Government.2. Applicability of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. Jurisdiction under Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.Summary:1. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted by the State Government:The employee filed an application before the Labour Court, Dibrugarh, constituted by the State Government u/s 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for computing his suspension/subsistence allowance u/s 33C(2) of the Act. The employer questioned the jurisdiction of this Labour Court, arguing that it was not specified by the Central Government. The Labour Court overruled this objection, but the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court upheld the employer's contention, stating, 'As the Labour Court at Dibrugarh was not specified by the appropriate Government they have no jurisdiction to issue notice to the Petitioner in both the cases.'2. Applicability of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:The Division Bench of the High Court concurred with the Single Judge that the Labour Court at Dibrugarh, not being specified by the Central Government, had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court reiterated 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.'' The Court emphasized that the specification by the appropriate Government is mandatory, and in the absence of such specification, the Labour Court at Dibrugarh lacked jurisdiction.3. Jurisdiction under Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946:The Division Bench found that the claim of subsistence allowance falls within Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It held that 'a Labour Court constituted under the 1947 Act, whether by the State Government or Central Government, would have jurisdiction to entertain a claim of subsistence allowance payable to a workman.' The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Labour Court at Dibrugarh, although constituted by the State Government, had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for subsistence allowance as per Section 10A(2) of the Standing Orders Act. The Court noted, 'Incorrect label of the application and mentioning wrong provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the Court of its jurisdiction.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Labour Court at Dibrugarh had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for subsistence allowance under Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Court directed the Labour Court to decide the dispute within six months and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
