YAZAKI INDIA EMPLOYEES UNIONversusYAZAKI INDIA LTD.

Neeta Sawant                  1/6                     33-WP-8108-2018-FC.doc
                                                      7 November 2023.


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 8108 OF 2018


Yazaki India Employees Union                        ...Petitioner
  V/s.

Yazaki India Ltd.                                  ...Respondent


                                     ----
Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Varun Joshi a/w. Mr. Chetan A. Alai, for the Respondent.


                                CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                Dated     : 7 November 2023.


P.C. :
1.       By this petition, Petitioner-Union challenges Judgment and
Order dated 21 September 2017 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court No. 2, Pune rejecting Application (IDA) No. 06 of
2013 filed under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) for recovery of amount due under
Settlement dated 20 January 2004.


2.             The Labour Court has proceeded to reject the application
on the ground that the applicability of Settlement dated 20 January
Neeta Sawant                  2/6                     33-WP-8108-2018-FC.doc
                                                      7 November 2023.


2004 to the temporary employees of the Respondent-Company was
under dispute. It has arrived at a finding that the settlement was to be
made applicable only to the permanent employees of the Company. It
has also referred to the subsequent Settlement dated 30 September
2004 for rejecting Petitioner’s application.


3.      Mr. Nerlekar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-
Union would submit that the Settlement dated 20 January 2004
nowhere uses the word 'permanent workmen'. That it applied to all
the workmen employed by the Respondent-Company without making
any distinction between permanent and temporary workmen. He
would further submit that while the Labour Court has referred to the
subsequent Settlement dated 30 September 2004, the benefits under
that settlement are also denied to the members of the Petitioner-Union
on the ground that the Settlement dated 30 September 2004 is
inapplicable to them. He would further submit that the Labour Court
has jurisdiction to interpret the Settlement in exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act.


4.             Per-contra, Mr. Joshi the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2-Company would oppose the petition and support
the order passed by the Labour Court. He would submit that the
Settlement dated 20 January 2004 was consciously not made
applicable to the temporary employees. That it was restricted to
permanent employees of the Respondent-Company. He would invite
my attention to the written statement filed before the Labour Court.
Neeta Sawant                   3/6                     33-WP-8108-2018-FC.doc
                                                       7 November 2023.


He would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Bombay Chemical Industries Versus. Deputy Labour Commissioner
and Anr. (2022) 5 SCC 629.


5.             I have considered the rival submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the parties.


6.             There is serious dispute about applicability of Settlement
dated 20 January 2004 to the temporary employees, on whose behalf
the application under Section 33-C(2) was filed by the Petitioner-
Union. It is the contention of Respondent-employer that the benefits
of settlement dated 20 January 2004 were restricted to permanent
employees. Thus Respondent-employer has raised serious dispute
about applicability of the Settlement dated 20 January 2004 to the
members of the Respondent-Union. In that view of the matter, the
Labour Court was not expected to determine the issue of applicability
of Settlement dated 20 January 2004 in proceedings filed under the
provisions of Section 33-C(2). Also of relevance is the fact that
Petitioner union has recognized the principle that the issue of
applicability of Settlement is required to be decided in substantive
proceedings and not under Section 33-C(2) by filing proceedings
before the Industrial Court seeking benefit of Settlement dated 30
September       2004.   If   Petitioner-Union   can   file   independent
proceedings for applicability of Settlement dated 30 September 2004
it is beyond comprehension as to why such proceedings were not be
Neeta Sawant                        4/6                       33-WP-8108-2018-FC.doc
                                                              7 November 2023.


filed for seeking applicability of Settlement dated 30 September 2004
to the members of the Petitioner-Union.


7.                The law with regard to the limited jurisdiction of the
Labour Court while entertaining application under Section 33-C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act is well settled. The Labour Court’s
jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is akin to that of executing Court.
Under Section 33-C(2) the labour court can implement the pre-
existing right. It cannot make any declaration with regard to existence
of a right or otherwise. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to
the judgment of the Apex Court in Bombay Chemical Industries
(supra) in which the Apex Court has held in paras-7 and 10 as under :


               7 At the outset it is required to be noted that Respondent 2 herein
               filed An application before the Labour Court under Section 33 -
               C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, demanding difference of
               wages from 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2012. It was thus the case on behalf
               of Respondent 2 that he was working with the appellant as a
               salesman. However, the appellant had taken a categorical stand
               that Respondent 2 was never engaged by the appellant. It was
               specifically the case on behalf of the appellant that Respondent 2
               had never worked in the 9 establishment in the post of salesman.
               Therefore, once there was a serious dispute that Respondent 2 had
               worked as an employee of the appellant and there was a very
               serious dispute raised by the appellant that Respondent 2 was not
               in employment as a salesman as claimed by Respondent 2,
               thereafter, it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain
               disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee
               relationship between the appellant and Respondent 2.


               10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
               decision to the facts of the case on hand, when there was no prior
Neeta Sawant                        5/6                       33-WP-8108-2018-FC.doc
                                                              7 November 2023.


               adjudication on the issue whether Respondent 2 herein was in
               employment as a salesman as claimed by Respondent 2 herein and
               there was a serious dispute raised that Respondent 2 was never in
               employment as a salesman and the documents relied upon by
               Respondent 2 were seriously disputed by the appellant and it was
               the case on behalf of the appellant that those documents are
               forged and/or false, thereafter the Labour Court ought not to have
               proceeded further with the application under Section 33-C(2) of
               the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ought to have
               relegated Respondent 2 to initiate appropriate proceedings by way
               of reference and get his right crystalised and/or adjudicated upon.




8.                Mr. Nerlekar, is right in contending that subsequent
Settlement dated 30 September 2004 would not have been the reason
for rejection of the application filed for payment of benefits under the
Settlement dated 20 January 2004. It appears that the employer has
disputed applicability of even the Settlement dated 30 September
2004 to the temporary employees and the issue is pending before this
Court.         However, so far as settlement dated 20 January 2004 is
concerned, there is a serious dispute about applicability of that
Settlement to the members of the Petitioner-Union. The Labour Court
therefore could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2)
of the I.D. Act. True it is that the Industrial Court can decide the issue
of interpretation of settlement. However, interpreting a settlement
and deciding its applicability to particular workman are two separate
issues. In the present case, there is a dispute about applicability of the
settlement to the Petitioner-Union. In that view of the matter, no
error can be traced in the order passed by the Labour Court. The Writ
             Neeta Sawant                 6/6                33-WP-8108-2018-FC.doc
                                                             7 November 2023.


             Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Any pending Interim
             Application, also stand disposed of.


                                                    SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT   Date:
         2023.11.10
         15:29:34
         +0530