S.33C Industrial Disputes Act Is For Execution Of Award, Labour Court Can’t Enter Adjudicatory Process To Decide Disputed Facts

Case: Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/S Ghanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S)

Coram: Justice AY Kogje

Case No.: C/SCA/7721/2018

Court Observation: “As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. As held by this Court in the case of Ganesh Razak and Anr. (supra), the labour court’s jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is like that of an executing court.”

Previous Posts

Only A Food Inspector Can Investigate A Commission Of Offence Related To Food Items As Per The FSS Act: Gauhati High Court

Intention Of Parties A Key Factor To Ascertain Benami Transactions: Kerala High Court

Delay In Appointment Due To No Fault Of The Candidate Cannot Be Allowed To Result In Delayed Promotion: Gujarat High Court

Claim For Regularization Of Suspension Period Can’t Be Examined In Isolation Pending Challenge To Dismissal From Service: Gujarat High Court

Gift Deed Not Effective When Possession Not Handed Over; Can Be Cancelled: Madras High Court

‘Human Tendency To Wait For Missing Person’: Gujarat High Court Says Suit For Declaring Child Missing Since 1984 Dead Not Barred By Limitation

Undertrial Also Barred From Voting As Per Section 62(5) RP Act; Allowing Prisoners To Vote Doesn’t Strengthen Democracy: Bombay High Court

Appeal Against Environmental Clearance Granted to Vishakapatnam Greenfield International Airport Restored By Supreme Court Before NGT Download Judgement

Objective Of Investigation Is To Unearth Truth, IO Can’t Throw Out Material Evidence Produced By Accused By Merely Citing S.91 CrPC: J&K&L High Court

S.19 Prevention Of Corruption Act | ‘Failure Of Justice’ Is A Facile Expression, Courts Must Be Circumspect While Determining It: Delhi High Court