https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183143 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. en-us Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2016 17:19:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183143 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183143