Q. What are the equivalent citations for M. S. N. S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli vs S K. Rajaram ?

The equivalence citation are(1960) 1 MLJ 236 ; (1960) ILR MAD 390 ; AIR 1960 MAD 332 ; LQ/MadHC/1959/369 ;

M. S. N. S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli Vs. S K. Rajaram On 22 December, 1959

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case M. S. N. S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli vs S K. Rajaram?

HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P. V. RAJAMANNAR , HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JAGADISAN

Open iDraf

M. S. N. S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli v. S K. Rajaram

M. S. N. S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli
v.
S K. Rajaram

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Writ Appeal No. 133 Of 1959 | 22-12-1959

P. V. RAJAMANNAR, C. J.

( 1 ) THE only point pressed upon us by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the workman for fixing the amount payable to him as back wages in consequence of the award of the Labour Court dated 11th September, 1954 in and by which the management was directed to reinstate the workman with back wages The contention was that the matter really fell within the province of Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and the workman should have moved the authority specified in that section for the relief he sought and therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. In our opinion the contention cannot be accepted for two reasons, Firstly, we think that Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is wide enough to cover a case like this where the award of a Labour Court merely gave a benefit to the workman, namely, the benefit of back wages, without specifying the amount the workman had become entitled to receive from the employer. This benefit is certainly one in respect of which the worker could apply to the labour court for determination of the actual amount. Secondly we think that though the term back wages is used to describe the benefit being awarded to the workman who has been without employment till the reinstatement, the claim would not be a claim to wages which fell within the scope of the Payment of Wages Act. We therefore hold that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the workman. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

( 2 ) APPEAL dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Appellant K. Parasaran, Advocate. For the Respondent -----

Bench List

HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P. V. RAJAMANNAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGADISAN

Eq Citation

(1960) 1 MLJ 236

(1960) ILR MAD 390

AIR 1960 MAD 332

LQ/MadHC/1959/369

HeadNote

Labour Law — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Ss. 33-C and 10(3) — Reinstatement with back wages — Determination of amount of back wages — Labour Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by workman for fixing the amount payable to him as back wages — Payment of Wages Act, 1936, S. 15