Writ jurisdiction and government company liability: disputed wage claims must go to the labour forum, not the writ court.

Employees' monetary and service claims depending on disputed facts, including whether they worked beyond 58 years and were entitled to salary and benefits, were held unsuitable for writ adjudication because the proper statutory mechanism for computation and recovery was Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The availability of an alternative remedy was not an absolute bar, but the writ forum was not the appropriate venue for resolving factual disputes. The Union of India was also found not legally liable to fund the wage dues of a government company, since such a company remains a separate legal entity and its liabilities do not automatically become those of the Union.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition was maintainable for adjudication of the employees' monetary and service claims involving disputed questions of fact, in view of the statutory remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) Whether the Union of India could be made liable to provide funds for payment of the alleged dues of employees of a government company.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition was maintainable for adjudication of the employees' monetary and service claims involving disputed questions of fact, in view of the statutory remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The claim turned on whether the employees actually worked beyond 58 years and whether salary and benefits were payable for that period. Those were disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and a proper trial. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a specific mechanism under Section 33C(2) for computation and recovery of money or money-valued benefits due to a workman. The availability of an alternative remedy did not operate as an absolute bar, but on the facts the writ forum was not the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for deciding the monetary claims, and the employees were required to pursue the remedy before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (ii): Whether the Union of India could be made liable to provide funds for payment of the alleged dues of employees of a government company.

Analysis: A government company remains a separate legal entity distinct from the Government. Its liabilities do not automatically become liabilities of the Union of India merely because the company is under governmental control or ownership. The exceptional facts relied upon by the employees did not justify fastening a general legal obligation on the Union to discharge the company's wage liability.

Conclusion: The Union of India could not be directed as a matter of legal obligation to meet the company's alleged wage liability.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under appeal was set aside, the writ petitioners were relegated to the appropriate statutory forum for their claims, and no enforceable liability was fastened on the Union of India.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employees' claim for wages or service benefits turns on disputed factual issues, the writ court should decline to adjudicate it and the statutory labour forum under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the appropriate remedy; separately, a government company's financial obligations do not, by themselves, constitute the legal liability of the Union of India.

---