The High Court of Delhi has set aside an order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II (CGIT-II) which had directed Allahabad Bank to pay Travelling Allowance (TA) to a retired employee acting as a Defence Assistant. The Court held that proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are in the nature of execution and cannot be invoked to adjudicate a disputed right that has not been previously recognized or settled.
Factual Background
The Respondent, R.S. Saini, was an employee of Allahabad Bank. While in service, he was authorized to act as a Defence Assistant for two other employees, Sh. A.S. Arora and Sh. B.S. Verma, in their departmental enquiry proceedings. During the pendency of these enquiries, the Respondent retired from the Bank on November 30, 2001.
While the Bank initially continued to pay TA/DA/conveyance to the Respondent after his retirement, it subsequently ceased such payments. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (LCA No. 17/2003) before the CGIT-II, claiming Rs. 14,280/-. On March 28, 2007, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the Bank to pay Rs. 16,500/-. Allahabad Bank challenged this finding before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner (Allahabad Bank) contended that:
- The findings were contrary to the Settlement dated April 10, 2002, which precludes TA/DA if the Defence Assistant is from the same State as the enquiry.
- Since the Respondent had superannuated, no employer-employee relationship existed to warrant such payments.
- Section 33C(2) is for execution of a “pre-existing, adjudicated right,” and since the Bank disputed the entitlement itself, the application was not maintainable.
- The Tribunal awarded Rs. 16,500/-, which exceeded the original claim of Rs. 14,280/-.
The Respondent (Workman) argued that:
- He was duly authorized by the Disciplinary Authority and his status as an office bearer of a registered Trade Union protected him from being treated as an “outsider” under Section 22(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
- The Bank’s initial payments post-retirement amounted to an acknowledgment of his entitlement.
- His retirement did not extinguish the authority or the entitlement to TA/DA that had already accrued.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Shail Jain emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 is “supervisory in nature and circumscribed in scope.” The Court identified the foundational question as the maintainability of the claim under Section 33C(2).
Referring to the jurisprudence of Section 33C(2), the Court noted a clear distinction between the “computation of a benefit flowing from an existing right” and the “adjudication of the right itself.” The Court observed:
“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…”
The Court cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. (1995), which held that where the very basis of the claim is disputed and there is no earlier adjudication, the dispute is not “incidental” and falls outside Section 33C(2). It also referenced State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brijpal Singh (2005) and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen & Anr. (1975) to reinforce that the Labour Court cannot “arrogate to itself the functions of an industrial Tribunal.”
Applying these principles, the Court found that the Bank had specifically disputed the entitlement based on the cessation of the employer-employee relationship and the terms of the Bipartite Settlement. The Court noted:
“The Respondent’s claim, therefore, necessarily required the Tribunal to undertake a primary adjudication on several foundational questions… Each of these questions is not merely incidental or interpretative, but goes to the very genesis of the right claimed.”
The Court further remarked that the continuation of payments for a limited period could not be construed as a binding recognition of a legal right, as such issues themselves required adjudication under Section 10 of the Act.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the application before the Tribunal was not maintainable under Section 33C(2) as the right claimed was not “pre-existing or adjudicated.” Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the Findings dated March 28, 2007, passed by the CGIT-II. The claim preferred by the Respondent was dismissed as not maintainable.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Allahabad Bank v. R.S. Saini
- Case No.: W.P.(C) 7096/2007
- Bench: Justice Shail Jain
- Date: May 12, 2026
