Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: LCA 4340-24
MURTI DEVI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
20.07.2026
Present: Sh. Vishal, Ld. AR for the workman.
Sh. Deepesh Verma, Ld. AR for the MCD/management.
The present petition has been filed by the
claimant/applicant/workman Smt. Murti Devi w/o Sh. Veerpal
claiming that she was employee of the management and management
has not cleared certain dues as mentioned in the petition/application.
The MCD/Management has filed service record and
calculation sheet admitting the workman to be its employee and also
admitting that the details of outstanding dues under various heads: (a)
Rs.4,63,418/- towards Non Matric + Pay Diff. of Regularization; (b)
Rs.30,972/- towards 7 CPC Arrear & (c) Rs.1,59,743/- towards MACP
Arrear and thus, total amount Rs.6,54,133/-.
Statement of AR for the applicant/claimant/workman has
already been recorded separately on 22.05.2026, whereby he has
admitted the correctness of calculation filed by the management and
requested that matter may be disposed off on the basis of calculation
given by the management.
Scope and ambit of Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act has been
discussed in para 13 of judgment titled
“Jeet Lal Sharma Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court-IV & Anr.” 2000 IV AD (Del) wherein Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi after referring to a series of judgments of Hon’ble
Apex Court titled (i)
“Punjab National Bank Vs. K. L. Kharbanda”
reported in 1962 (1) LLJ 234; (ii) “Central Bank of India Vs. P.S.
Rajagopalan” reported in 1963 (2) LLJ 89; (iii) “Bombay Gas
Company Limited Vs. Gopal Bhiva” reported in 1963 (2) LLJ 608;
(iv) “Chief Engineer Mining, East India Coal Company Limited Vs.
Rameshwar” reported in 1968 (1) Lab I.C.6 SC and (v) “Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak” reported in 1995 (1) SCC
LCA 4340-24
	Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
335 has observed:
“13. When the claim is based on adjudication or
settlement it poses no difficulty. However there may
be cases where the workman would be held entitled to
receive the money as pre-existing right on the basis of
the agreement between the employer and employee or
as per established service conditions which have
culminated into right in favour of the workman……
It was also held by Hon’ble Apex Court that
application under section 33-C(2) would be
maintainable and jurisdiction of Labour Court will not
be barred merely because employer has denied the
same in case the right to get a particular benefit is
included in the service conditions. Para 15 and 16 of
judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Jeet Lal Sharma’s
case (supra) w.r.t jurisdiction of Labour Court are
reproduced below for reference:
“15. The point which is emphasized is that
entitlement to receive money i.e. pre-existing right
can be based on (1) adjudication (2) settlement (3)
service conditions. If the right to get a particular
benefit is there, the application u/s. 33-C(2) would be
maintainable and jurisdiction of Labour Court will not
be barred merely because employer has denied the
same.”
“16. What is the meaning of the expression
“entitlement to receive”. No doubt it is referable to
pre-existing right. However where the workman
claims a benefit flowing from a pre-existing and
approaches the Labour Court u/s. 33-C(2) for
computation of the right in term of money and the
employer disputes the existence of the right, the
Labour Court will have jurisdiction to determine the
question whether the right exists and if the existence
of right is established than to proceed to compute the
benefit flowing there from in terms of money or on its
decisions recovery proceedings can start (New Taj
Mahal Cafe Private Limited versus Labour Court
reported in 1970 (2) LLN 51 and East India Coal
Company Limited (supra). In deciding the
maintainability of the application u/s. 33-C(2) what is
to be looked at is the claim set up in the applications
and not what the other side contends in its reply. The
fact that the employer by his plea raises some dispute
does not mean that jurisdiction of Labour Court to
deal with the question is taken away.”
LCA 4340-24
	Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
Accordingly, application under Section 33 C(2) of ID
Act, 1947 is therefore, allowed and management is directed to pay
Rs.6,54,133/- to the claimant/applicant/ workman Smt. Murti Devi
w/o Sh. Veerpal. Needless to mention, if at any point of time, it is
found that amount has already been paid or overpaid, the MCD
would be at liberty to deduct said amount. Further, if at any point
of time, it is found that due to some discrepancy, error due to
incorrect fixation of pay or any emoluments, excess payment has
been made, the applicant would be liable to refund the said amount
to the MCD. The applicant would give an undertaking in this
regard to the MCD.
File be consigned to record room.
As prayed, copy of this order be given dasti.
(Chetna Singh)
POLC-06: RADC/New Delhi
20.07.2026
LCA 4340-24
	Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --