Jurisdiction over labour claims depends on statutory forum specification, while a mislabelled subsistence allowance claim can still be heard.

A Labour Court could not entertain a money claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act unless it was specifically specified by the appropriate Government; the statutory reference to a designated forum was held to be substantive, not redundant, and the absence of such specification was decisive. By contrast, a subsistence allowance dispute fell within the special jurisdiction under Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, because that provision authorises the Labour Court within the establishment's local limits to decide such claims. The incorrect labelling of the application did not defeat jurisdiction where the relief sought was otherwise within the court's competence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Labour Court can entertain a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only if it has been specifically designated by the appropriate Government; (ii) Whether a Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within the local limits of the establishment's location can decide a dispute regarding subsistence allowance under Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 notwithstanding that the workman styled the claim under the wrong provision.

Issue (i): Whether a Labour Court can entertain a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only if it has been specifically designated by the appropriate Government.

Analysis: The expression requiring the Labour Court to be "specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government" was held to be meaningful and not redundant. The explanation to Section 33C enlarges the meaning of "Labour Court" by including courts constituted under State industrial dispute laws, but it does not remove the requirement that the appropriate Government must specify the forum for deciding money claims under Section 33C(2). The absence of such specification was decisive.

Conclusion: The claim under Section 33C(2) could not be entertained unless the Labour Court was specified by the appropriate Government.

Issue (ii): Whether a Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within the local limits of the establishment's location can decide a dispute regarding subsistence allowance under Section 10A(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 notwithstanding that the workman styled the claim under the wrong provision.

Analysis: Section 10A(2) provides a special mechanism for disputes concerning subsistence allowance and confers jurisdiction on the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within whose local limits the establishment is situated. The claim before the Labour Court at Dibrugarh related to subsistence allowance, and the establishment was within its jurisdiction. The incorrect label of the application did not affect jurisdiction where the relief claimed otherwise fell within the court's competence.

Conclusion: The Labour Court at Dibrugarh had jurisdiction to decide the subsistence allowance dispute under Section 10A(2).

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme preserved the requirement of governmental specification for Section 33C(2) claims, but the subsistence allowance dispute was maintainable before the Labour Court under the special provision in Section 10A(2), so the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision conferring jurisdiction on a specified forum must be given full effect, but a claim wrongly labelled under one provision may still be entertained if the relief sought squarely falls within an independent statutory jurisdiction expressly conferred on the forum.

---