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 employee's claim for difference of pay and selection grade was a computation of money due arising from an existing right under Section 33C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act; (ii) Whether claims relating to the period before the appointed day under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971 could be adjudicated against the Corporation, and whether the Labour Court could sustain the award for the whole claim.
Issue (i): Whether the employee's claim for difference of pay and selection grade was a computation of money due arising from an existing right under Section 33C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.
Analysis: The entitlement to the PMS Grade II scale and selection grade was supported by the wage board recommendation and the relevant government order. The employee had opted for PMS Grade II, the option had been accepted, and the service record showed the factual predicates as admitted. The right to selection grade had accrued before acquisition, and the enquiry required only computation of money due on the basis of existing service records, not adjudication of a disputed entitlement.
Conclusion: Yes. The claim, so far as it flowed from an existing right after the appointed day, was computable under Section 33C(2).
Issue (ii): Whether claims relating to the period before the appointed day under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971 could be adjudicated against the Corporation, and whether the Labour Court could sustain the award for the whole claim.
Analysis: The acquisition statute drew a distinction between liabilities arising before and after the appointed day. Amounts due for the pre-appointed-day period were recoverable before the prescribed authority under the statutory scheme, while liabilities for the post-appointed-day period rested on the Corporation. Section 16 preserved service rights by a deeming fiction, but that protection did not convert pre-acquisition dues into a Corporation liability. The Labour Court, therefore, could not uphold the award in respect of the entire claim without separating the two periods.
Conclusion: No. The award could not stand for the whole claim and had to be set aside to the extent it covered pre-appointed-day matters.
Final Conclusion: The award was interfered with in part, and the matter was sent back for fresh computation limited to the legally recoverable post-appointed-day entitlement, while leaving the pre-appointed-day claim to be dealt with in accordance with the statutory scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim under Section 33C(2) is maintainable only where the right is already accrued and the proceeding is confined to computation of the amount due; under an acquisition statute that separates liabilities by the appointed day, pre-appointed-day dues cannot be fastened on the transferee Corporation through such computation.
TaxTMI 
