The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the findings of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II whereby the labour court allowed the travel allowance claim of the workman filed u/s.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute centres on whether the workman remained entitled to payments of travel allowance / dearness allowance/ conveyance after cessation of employment.

The Delhi High Court held –

“11. … it is apposite to observe that the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, while examining an Award passed by the Labour Court, is supervisory in nature and circumscribed in scope. It is well settled that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority over the findings returned by the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only where the Award suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or where material evidence has been ignored.

12. … The award of the Labour Court can be set aside only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.”

With respect to the filing of an application u/s.33C(2), it was held –

“the power conferred by Section 33C(2) is one of computation and recovery and not of adjudication. Where the very foundation of the claim is in dispute, the workman must first have his entitlement recognised by the appropriate forum, and only thereafter may he invoke Section 33C(2) for the purpose of computing and recovering the benefit so recognised.”

The Ld. Single Judge held that the application u/s.33C(2) was not maintainable. It was held –

            “33. Thus, the present case exemplifies a situation where the Labour Court has effectively assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate a disputed industrial claim under the guise of computation, thereby transgressing the statutory limits of Section 33C(2). Such an approach not only runs contrary to settled law but also undermines the carefully structured scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, which delineates distinct forums and procedures for adjudication and execution.

34. In the absence of any prior adjudication, award, settlement, or statutory provision recognising the claimed right, the Respondent’s claim was not one of computation simpliciter, but one requiring foundational adjudication.”

The writ petition was allowed, the findings of the labour court were quashed and set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and the claim of the workman u/s.33C(2) was dismissed as not maintainable.