Delhi District CourtSh. Kushal Singh vs M/S Top Security Ltd on 22 September, 2014IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR 
         ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE 
        PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT 
          KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
LCA NO. 26/14 

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Sh.  Kushal Singh
S/o. Sh.  Nar Singh 
C/o Tops Security Employees Union (Regd.),
52­C, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase­III,
New Delhi­20                                                          .........Workman
                                     Versus 
M/s Top Security Ltd. 
B­53, Shivalik Malviya Nagar, 
New Delhi­17                                                         .....Management


                      DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.01.2013
                      DATE OF ARGUMENTS               : 27.08.2014
                      DATE OF ORDER        
                                                     
                                                     : 22.09.2014
                                                                   

                                                      ORDER1.                   By this  order I shall decide  application u/s 33­C(2) of 

theID Actfiled by the applicant/workman.2.            Brief facts as stated in the application are that  he has 

been working with the management since 16.03.1998 as security 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 1  out of 34
 guard and his present wages is Rs. 10700/­ per month which used 

to be transferred directly into his account. The management never 

gave salary slip. The management in furtherance of unfair labour 

practice used to deduct Rs. 175/­ per month from the earned wages 

of each workman illegally and unjustifiably on account of alleged 

training charges; though management used to take training charges 

from its client. The aforesaid illegal practices has been started by 

the management from March, 2008 and thus a sum of Rs. 10150/­ 

(175x 58) is due towards management.3.                   Notice   of   the   application   was   issued   to   the 

management.   Management   filed   reply     in   which     preliminary 

objection was taken by the management that the application is not 

maintainable as management is making deduction from the salary 

of the claimant legally and justifiably. It is stated that management 

is a security service provider which provide security personnel  to 

various establishment, clients on contractual basis. The personnel 

engaged for the said purpose  specially Security Guards, Gunmen 

and Supervisors need a proper and continues training to perform 

the   work   efficiently.     Even   as   per   'Private   Security   Agencies 

(Regulation)   Act,   2005'     every   private   Security   Agency   has   to 

ensure imparting of training and skills to its private security guards 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 2  out of 34
 and supervisors and completion of the prescribed security training 

successfully   is   one  of  the    eligibility to be  employed as  private 

security guard.   Since   training provide to the security guard is 

continuous   training   &   an   ongoing   process,   the   training   is 

conducted 3­4 times in a month. The duration of the training varies 

according to the design & module of the training program from 4 

to 16 hours. Training is conducted by & under the expert guidance 

of the ex­servicemen and former police personnel and the security 

guard were provided certificate for the training under gone by them 

and   with   such   certificate   the   person   become   eligible   to   be   a 

security guard or supervisors and may join the job in the private 

security agency. For continuous training & updation, up gradation 

& keep up the security guards with the ever changing environment 

a nominal fees is being taken by the management.  Even all persons 

have given an undertaking  that they will participate in the training 

and   will   pay   the   fee   of   the   training.   Therefore,   even   if   the 

management   is   taking   a   nominal   amount   from   the   personnel 

against the imparted training to them, is not illegal  but valid and 

justified.  Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.4.                   Further  objection taken by the management is that the 

present claim filedu/s 33C(2)of ID Act  is not maintainable as the 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 3  out of 34
 claimant   can   claim   relief   UnderSection   15of   the   Payment   of 

Wages Act 1936.5.        On merit contents of application is denied except para no.1 

which   is   about   salary   and   date   of   appointment   of   applicant/ 

workman.   The   management   has     denied   that   management   is 

engaged in unfair labour practice and never gave the pay slips.  It is 

also denied that  the management is deducting any amount from the 

earned   wages   of   the   workmen   illegally   and   unjustifiably. 

Accordingly,   it   was   prayed   that   the   application   filed   by   the 

applicant is liable to be dismissed.6.                   No rejoinder was filed by workman to the reply/W.S. 

of the management. From the pleading of parties,  following issues 

were framed:1.        Whether the  management is entitled to deduct the sum  

           of Rs.175/?2.        Whether the claimant is entitled for relief as claimed  

           in the application? OPW3.        Relief.6.                   After framing of issues, case was fixed for workman 

evidence for 17.07.14, however, on that day itself Ld. AR for both 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 4  out of 34
 parties   have   submitted   that   since   it   is   undisputed   facts   that 

management was deducting Rs.175/­per month from the salary of 

the claimant and only issue is that  whether  the workman is entitle 

to sought the  relief   claimed in  an applicationu/s 33C (2)of ID 

Act  or not or that management is entitle to deduct the said amount 

on   the   ground   of   providing   training   for   which   evidence   is   not 

required   as   both   issues   are   legal   issue,   hence   no   evidence   is 

required and they will not lead any evidence and will argue straight 

way.7.                   Final arguments heard from Sh. Prabhakar, Ld. AR for 

workman and Sh. Atul Tripathi, Ld. AR for management.Issue No. 1 & 28.                   Since   both   issue   no.1   and   2     are   interconnected, 

therefore,   I   shall   decide     the   same   together.   Ld.   AR   for 

management  has argued that  the relief sought in the application by 

the claimant that is computation of benefits of Rs. 175/­ per month 

which according to applicant is illegal deduction cannot be claimed 

in an applicationu/s 33C(2)of ID. Act. He argued that proceeding 

u/s 33C(2) is in the nature of execution and only  the computation 

of benefit  which is granted in   any settlement or award or where 

there   is   any   existing   right   to   claim   benefits   can   be   claim   as 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 5  out of 34
 proceedingu/s  33C (2)of the  ID Act and since neither any award 

or settlement has been passed  in favour of the workman/claimant 

nor he has   any existing rights to claim the amount deducted by 

management,   therefore,     relied   sought   by   workman   cannot   be 

claimed in an applicationu/s 33C(2)hence present application is 

not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He further argued that 

if   claimant want the said reliefs he should have   approach either 

u/s 10 of theID Actmaking it an industrial dispute or should have 

file application before prescribed authority as provided under thePayment of   Wages Act.In support of his contention he has relied 

upon judgementCentral Bank Of India Ltd. Vs P.S. Rajgopalanand another,1964AIR SC 743, MCD Vs. Ganesh Razek & Anr., 

(1995)   1   SCC   235,   Workman   of   MCD   vs   MCD,W.P(c)   No.

2505/2007 DHC.9.                   On the other hand  Ld. AR for workman/applicant has 

argued that the relief sought by applicant can very much claim in 

the applicationu/s  33C (2)of the ID Act as any illegal deduction 

in the salary  is violation of existing right of workman and thus,  he 

can claim the said benefit. Hence, the application is maintainable.He further argued that applicant has liberty to approach for relief 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 6  out of 34
 against illegal deductions in salary to either prescribed authority 

provided underPayment of Wages Actor before Labour Court in 

an applicationu/s 33C(2)of ID.Act. In support of his contention he 

has relied upon  Md. Ismile Vs. Presiding Officer Government 

Industrial   Tribunal­cum­labour   court­Jabalpur   &   Ors.   FLR 

1980 (40) 41510.                  I   have   heard   the   arguments   of   both   parties,   and 

carefully gone through the record.Section 33­C(2) of theI.D. Actprovides that:" Where any workman is entitled to receive from  
                   the employer any money or any benefit which is  
                   capable of being computed in terms of money and  
                   if any question arises as to the amount of money  
                   due   or  as   to  the  amount  at   which  such  benefit  
                   should   be   computed,   then   the   question   may,  
                   subject to any rules that may be made under this  
                   Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be  
                   specified   in   this   behalf   by   the   appropriate  
                   Government [within a period not exceeding three  
                   months]  (2)  [ provided that where the presiding  
                   officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary  
                   or   expedient   to   do,   he   may,   for   reasons   to   be  
                   recorded in writing, extend such period by such  
                   further period as he may think fit."11.                  From     perusal   of   the   section   it   is   evident   that   an 

applicationu/s 33C (2)can be filed when an employee is entitle to 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 7  out of 34
 received any money or for computation of benefit  which is capable 

of being  computed in term of money.   In this case workman is 

claiming amount which according to him is illegally deducted by 

management   from   his   salary   thus   same   is   due   towards   him.In 

"Central   Inland   Water   Transport   Corporation   Ltd.   v.   The 

Workmen"AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 1604 it is held that :­



           "...11.   The   only   question   which   arises   for  
           determination   in   this  Court   is   whether   the   Labour  
           Court   had   jurisdiction   to  adjudicate   on   the   issues  
           referred to it underSection 33C (2)of the Industrial  
           Disputes Act. Sub­section (2), which is part ofSection  
           33Cdealing with "the recovery of money due from an  
           employer'' reads as follows:"(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the  
           employer any money or any benefit which is capable  
           of   being   computed   in   terms   of   money   and   if   any  
           question arises as to the amount of money due or as to  
           the amount at which such benefit should be computed,  
           then the question may, subject to any rules that any be  
           made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court  
           as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate  
           Government.''
            It is now well­settled that a proceeding underSection  
           33C (2)is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an  
           execution   proceeding   wherein   the   Labour   Court  
           calculates   the   amount   of   money   due   to   a   workmen  
           from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any  
           benefit which is capable of being computed in term of  
           money,   the   Labour   Court   proceeds   to   compute   the  

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 8  out of 34
            benefit   in   terms   of   money.   This   calculation   or  
           computation   follows   upon   an   existing   right   to   the  
           money   or   benefit,   in   view   of   its   being   previously  
           adjudged,   or,   otherwise,   duly   provided   for.   In   Chief  
           Mining   Engineer   East   India   Coal   Co.   Ltd.     v.Rameswar, (1968) 1 SCR 140 = (AIR 1968 SC 218) it  
           was reiterated that proceedings underSection 33C (2)are   analogous   to   execution   proceedings   and  the  
           Labour   Court   called   upon   to   compute   in   terms   of  
           money the benefit claimed by workmen is in such cases  
           in   the   position   of   an   executing   court.   It   was   also  
           reiterated that the right to the benefit which is sought  
           to be computed must be an existing one, that it to say,  
           already   adjudicated   upon   or   provided   for   and   must  
           arise   in   the   course   of   and   in   relation   to   the  
           relationship  between  an Industrial  workmen  and his  
           employer."12.In  "Namor   Ali   Choundhury   v.   Central   Inland 

Water   Transport   Corporation   Ltd."   AIR   1978   SUPREME 

COURT 275  4.  it is held by Supreme Court that :­

                              "In   our   judgment   the   High   Court   has  
                              committed an error in so narrowly interpretingS. 33C(2)of the Act. The said provision runs as  
                              follows :"Where any workman is entitled to receive from  
                              the employer any money or any benefit which is  
                              capable of being computed in terms of money  
                              and if any question arises as to the amount of  
                              money due or as to the amount at which such  
                              benefit should be computed, then the question  
                              may,   subject   to   any   rules   that   may   be   made  

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 9  out of 34
                              under   this   Act,   be   decided   by   such   Labour  
                             Court   as   may   be   specified   in   this   behalf   by  
                             appropriate Government." There are two parts  
                             of   the   sub­section  as   it   stands   after   its  
                             amendment by Act 36 of 1964. The first part is  
                             concerned   with   the   money   claim  simpliciter  
                             and the second part speaks about computation  
                             in terms of money of any benefit to which the  
                             workman is entitled. Although for appreciation  
                             of   the   point   at   issue   there   is   no   substantial  
                             difference   between   the   two,   we   shall   confine  
                             our   discussion   to  the  money   claim   only  pure  
                             and simple. On a plain reading of the wordings  
                             of the Statute it would be found that where any  
                             workman is entitled to receive from employer  
                             any money and if any question arises as to the  
                             amount of money due, then the question may be  
                             decided by the Labour Court. The expression  
                             "if   any   question   arises   as   to   the   amount   of  
                             money due" embraces within its ambit any one  
                             or more of the following kinds of disputes :­
                             (1) Whether there is any settlement or award as  
                             alleged?(2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive  
                             from the employer any money at all under any  
                             settlement or an award etc?(3) If so, what will be the rate or quantum of  
                             such amount?(4) Whether the amount claimed is due or not?Broadly   speaking,   these   will   be   the   disputes  
                             which will be referable to the question as to the  
                             amount  of   money  due.   If  the  right  to get  the  
                             money   on   the   basis   of   the   settlement   or   the  
                             award is not established, no amount of money  
                             will be due. If it is established, then it has to be  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 10  out of 34
                              found out, albeit, it may be by mere calculation,  
                             as to what is the amount due. For finding it out,  
                             it   is   not   necessary   that   there   should   be   a  
                             dispute  as  to  the amount  of  money  due  also.The   fourth   kind   of   dispute   which   we   have  
                             indicated above obviously and literally will be  
                             covered by the phrase, "amount of money due".  
                             A   dispute   as   to   all   such   questions   or   any   of  
                             them would attract the provisions ofS. 33C(2)of the Act and make the remedy available to the  
                             workman concerned."13.                    As far as judgement "Central Bank of India Ltd. v. 

P.   S.   Rajagopalan"AIR   1964   SUPREME   COURT   743  relied 

upon   by   Ld.   ARM   is   concerned   same   goes   against   the 

management. In this case Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that:19. "We have already noticed that in enactingS. 33Cthe   legislature   has   deliberately   omitted   some   words  
           which occurred inS. 20(2)of the Industrial Disputes  
           (Appellate   Tribunal)   Act,   1950.   It   is   remarkable   that  
           similar words of limitation have been used inS. 33C(1)becauseS. 33C(1)deals with cases where any money is  
           due   under   a   settlement   or   an   award   or   under   the  
           provisions of Chapter VA. It is thus clear that claims  
           made   underS.   33C(1),   by   itself   can   be   only   claims  
           referable   to   the   settlement,   award,   or   the   relevant  
           provisions of Chapter VA. These words of limitations  
           are not to be found inS. 33C(2)and to that extent, the  
           scope ofS. 33C(2)is undoubtedly wider than that ofS.  
           33C(1). It is true that even in respect of the larger class  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 11  out of 34
            of   cases   which   fall   underS.   33C(2)after   the  
           determination   is   made   by   the   Labour   Court   the  
           execution goes back again toS. 33C(1). That is whyS.  
           33C(2)expressly   provides   that   the   amount   so  
           determined may be recovered as provided for in sub­
           sec. (1). It is unnecessary in the present appeals either  
           to state exhaustively or even to indicate broadly what  
           other   categories   of   claims   can   fall   under   S   33C(2).There is no doubt that the three categories of claims  
           mentioned inS. 33C(1)fall underS. 33C(2)and in that  
           sense,S. 33C(2)can itself be deemed to be a kind of  
           execution proceeding; but it is possible that claims not  
           based   on   settlements,   awards   or   made   under   the  
           provisions of Chapter VA, may also be competent underS. 33C(2)and that may illustrate its wider scope....."14.                    Thus from the aforesaid judgements it is evident that 

where   applicant   is   claiming   any   amount   is   due   to   him   from 

management he can claim the same in an applicationu/s 33C(2)even though no settlement or award has been passed in favour of 

workman or amount is not covered u/s V­A or V­B of ID. Act. As 

scope undersection 33C(2)is much wider thanu/s 33C (1).15.                  Undoubtedly inMunicipal Corporation of Delhi vs. 

Ganesh   Razek  &  Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 235  relied upon by Ld. 

ARM  Hon,ble   High   Court   has   held   that  back   wages   cannot   be 

claimed in an applicationu/s 33C (2)unless granted in an award. 

Hon,ble Supreem Court held as under:"12. The High Court has referred to some  

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 12  out of 34
               of these decisions but missed the true import thereof.  
              The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where  
              the   very   basis   of   the   claim   or   the   entitlement   of   the  
              workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no  
              earlier   adjudication   or   recognition   thereof   by   the  
              employer,   the   dispute   relating   to   entitlement   is   not  
              incidental   to   the   benefit   claimed   and   is,   therefore,  
              clearly outside the scope of a proceeding underSection  
              33­   C(2)   of   the   Act.   The   Labour   Court   has   no  
              jurisdiction   to   first   decide   the   workmen's   entitlement  
              and then proceed to compare the benefit so adjudicated  
              on that basis in exercise of its power underSection 33­  
              C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been  
              earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and  
              thereafter   for   the   purpose   of   implementation   or  
              enforcement   thereof   some   ambiguity   required  
              interpretation   that   the   interpretation   is   treated   as  
              incidental to the Labour Court's power underSection  
              33­C(2)   like   that   of   the   Executing   Court's   power   to  
              interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.In   the   case   ofState   Bank   of   India   vs.   Ram   Chandra  
               Dubey &  Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 73, this Court held as  
               under:"7.   When   a   reference   is   made   to   an  
              Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only  
              as to whether the termination of a workman is justified  
              or not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of  
              examination of the question whether the reinstatement  
              should be with full or partial back wages or none. Such  
              a question is one of fact depending upon the evidence to  
              be produced before the Tribunal. If after the termination  
              of the employment, the workman is gainfully employed  
              elsewhere it is  one of the factors to be considered in  
              determining whether or not reinstatement should be with  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 13  out of 34
               full back wages or with continuity of employment. Such  
              questions   can   be   appropriately   examined   only   in   a  
              reference. When a reference is made underSection 10of  
              the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be  
              determined by the Tribunal and in this particular case, a  
              specific question has been referred to the Tribunal as to  
              the nature of relief to be granted to the workmen.8. The principles enunciated in the decisions referred by  
              either   side   can   be   summed   up   as   follows:Whenever   a   workman   is   entitled   to   receive   from   his  
              employer any money or    any   benefit which is capable  
              of being computed in terms of money and which he is  
              entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of  
              such benefit can approach Labour Court underSection  
              33­ C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced  
              underSection 33­ C(2) of the Act is necessarily a pre­
              existing benefit or one flowing from a pre­existing right.  
              The difference between a pre­existing right or benefit on  
              one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered  
              just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls  
              within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers  
              underSection 33­C(2) of the Act while the latter does  
              not. It cannot be spelt out from the award in the present  
              case   that   such   a   right   or   benefit   has   accrued   to   the  
              workman as the specific question of the relief granted is  
              confined   only   to   the   reinstatement   without   stating  
              anything more as to the back wages. Hence that relief  
              must   be   deemed   to   have   been   denied,   for   what   is  
              claimed   but   not   granted   necessarily   gets   denied   in  
              judicial or quasi­ judicial proceeding. Further when a  
              question   arises   as   to   the   adjudication   of   a   claim   for  
              back wages all relevant circumstances which will have  
              to   be   gone   into,   are   to   be   considered   in   a   judicious  
              manner. Therefore, the appropriate forum wherein such  
              question of back wages could be decided is only in a  

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 14  out of 34
               proceeding to whom a reference underSection 10of the  
              Act is made. To state that merely upon reinstatement, a  
              workman would be entitled, under the terms of award, to  
              all his arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect  
              because several factors will have to be considered, as  
              stated   earlier,   to   find   out   whether   the   workman   is  
              entitled   to   back   wages   at   all   and   to   what   extent.  
              Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court ought  
              not   to   have   presumed   that   the   award   of   the   Labour  
              Court for grant of back wages is implied in the relief of  
              reinstatement or that the award of reinstatement itself  
              conferred right for claim of back wages."16.                  But since in this case issue is not grant of back wages 

but grant of money which has been according to management has 

been illegally deducted by management therefore said judgement is 

not applicable.17.In another judgement relied upon by management i.e.Workman of MCD vs MCD WP(C) 2505/2007 dt. 12 May 2009 

is concernedin that  caseissue was whether   relief claimed   by 

applicants i.e. liveries and stitching and washing allowances in an 

applicationu/s 33C(2)is maintainable and whether application can 

be rejected after framing a preliminary issue on the maintainability. 

The Hon,ble High Court dismissing the writ petition of workman 

has held that :"   16.   The   courts   and   tribunals   of   limited  
               jurisdiction   while   exercising   their   powers   under   any  

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 15  out of 34
                enactment   or   statute   cannot   assume   any   power   by  
               implication just because they feel that in the absence of  
               such   implied   power,   his   jurisdiction   underS.   33C(2)could be better exercised. If the legislature did not confer  
               adequate   powers   on   the   specified   authority   underS.  
               33C(2), a more reasonable inference would be that the  
               nature and scope of the powers underS. 33C(2)is very  
               limited and the legislature was conscious of the fact that,  
               for holding such a limited and narrow enquiry, it was  
               unnecessary to confer powers invariably associated with  
               formal and complicated enquiries of a judicial or quasi­
               judicial character.17.InUnion of India v. Kankuben,(2006) 9 SCC 292, the  
               Apex   Court   explained   that   whenever   a   workman   is  
               entitled to receive from  his employer any money or any  
               benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of  
               money   and   which   he   is   entitled   to   receive   from   his  
               employer   and   is   denied   of   such   benefit   can   approach  
               Labour   Court   underSection   33­C(2)   of   the   Act.   The  
               benefit sought to be enforced underSection 33­C(2) of  
               the   Act   is   necessarily   a   pre­existing   benefit   or   one  
               flowing from a pre­existing right. The difference between  
               a pre­ existing right or benefit on one hand and the right  
               or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other  
               hand   is   vital.   The   former   falls   within   jurisdiction   of  
               Labour Court exercising powers underSection 33­ C(2)  
               of the Act while the latter does not.18. Furthermore, the contention of the counsel for the  
               petitioner that the rates claimed by the petitioners were  
               admitted rates on which payment was earlier made, is  
               required to be considered along with other concomitant  
               facts,   which   being   disputed   question   of   facts   require  
               adjudication underS.10, I.D. Act.19. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is manifest  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 16  out of 34
                that the nature of power or the scope of enquiry underS.  
               33­C is limited and pertains to a pre­existing benefit or  
               one flowing from a pre­existing right.20. In the present petitions, I do not feel that the tribunal  
               committed any error in dismissing the applications filed  
               by the petitioners underS. 33­C (2). First of all the MCD  
               raised the dispute to the entitlement of the petitioner's to  
               liveries etc. But even if it be taken that the petitioner's  
               had right to liveries and stitching and washing allowance  
               as per the rules of the MCD, but still certain question of  
               facts as to whether they were entitled to purchase them  
               from open market and what cost should be allowed for  
               such   purchase,   why   did   they   raise   this   question   of  
               reimbursement after a lapse of 6­7 yrs. etc. and certainly  
               are   such   questions   cannot   be   answered   by   a   court  
               exercising execution jurisdiction. The said issues require  
               adjudication on merits after formal enquiry, which can  
               be gone into only underS. 10of the ID Act.21. The  Labour   Court  in exercise  of  its  powers  underSection 33C(2)of the Act cannot enlarge the scope of the  
               said   provision   by   arrogating   to   itself   the   function   of  
               adjudicating   the   dispute   relating   to   the   claim   of   the  
               nature   made   by   the   workmen,   herein.   The   limitations  
               placed on the Labour Court underSection 33C(2)of the  
               Act   are   of   such   a   nature   which   do   not   permit   it   to  
               entertain a claim put forward by a workman in respect of  
               a matter which is not based on an pre­existing right and  
               which can be adjudicated upon in an industrial dispute  
               underSection 10of the Act."18.                  As   stated   above   in   the   present   case     applicant/ 

workman is not seeking any benefits which workman is entitle but 

he is seeking money which is due to him on account of alleged 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 17  out of 34
 illegal   deduction   from   his   wages   thus   in   my   view   above   said 

judgement is also not applicable to the present. Hence, in my view 

relief claimed by workman can be claimed in an applicationu/s 

33C (2)of the ID. Act.19.       I do not find  another contention of ARM that the workman 

had remedy to file complaint against alleged illegal deduction of 

amount from wages  before the authority provided undersection 15of  Payment  of Wages Act hence he cannot seek the said remedy in 

an applicationu/s 33C(2)hence he can not seek the relief in an 

applicationu/s  33C (2)of the ID Act. Undoubtedly, the relief has 

been provided insection 15of Payment of Wages Act in case of 

illegal   deduction   from   wages   by   management.   Undoubtedly,   as 

provided in proviso of subsection 2ofsection 15of  Act there is a 

limitation of 12 month in filing the complaintu/s 15of the Payment 

of   Wages   Act   which   has   already   been   expired.   In   my   view 

workman can claim relief against illegal deduction in wages either 

insection 15of Payment of wages Act or in 33C(2). However in 

case he seek relief insection 33C(2)in such event workman loss 

valuable   right   of   getting   compensation   in   the   form   of   penalty 

imposed   on   management   which   could   be   ten   time   of   amount 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 18  out of 34
 illegally deducted though he escapes from period of limitation as 

there is no period of limitation to file an applicationu/s 33C(2)ID 

Act. In support of my argument  I rely upon judgment  Md. Ismile 

Vs.   Presiding   Officer,   Labour   Court,   Jabalpur   and   Ors.­

FLR­1980(40)   415  in   this   case   the   claimant/workman   was 

appointed as (NMDC) I Surveyor in National Mineral Development 

Corporation in the pay scale of 230­500/­ after retirement from the 

service  Madhya Pradesh Govt. Since his pension was not finalized 

by the state Government,   Corporation  fixed his adhoc pay in the 

pay scale of 180­360/­. As soon as     his pension was   fixed by 

Madhya Pradesh  Govt. he requested for   fixation of   his pay in 

terms of appointment but since nothing was done by the National 

Medical Development  Corporation, therefore,  workman  filed the 

application  u/s  33C (2) of theID Actfor payment of differences 

in   wages.   The   application   was   opposed   by   the     NMDC   on   the 

ground that the application is not  maintainable insection 33C(2)as petitioner got remedyu/s 15of the Payment of Wages Act. The 

objection was sustained by Tribunal. However       High Court  of 

Madhya Pardesh held that  the remedy provided under thePayment 

of Wages Actdo not barred the workman to claim relief  u/s  33C 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 19  out of 34
 (2) of theID Act.  The relevant  provision  of judgement in para no. 

8 is reproduced as below:"....   however,   the   Division   Bench   decision   of   this  
                court in Laxman tulsiram Vs. Dayalal Meghji and  
                Co. (supra) is the solitary decision which has taken  
                a contrary view and has held that in view ofsection  
                22of   the   Payment   of   Wages   Act   claim   coul   dbe  
                entertained   underSection   2(   vi)   and     15   of   thePayment     of   Wages   Actand   not     undersection  
                33C(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act.This has been  
                followed   by   another   Division   Bench   decision   in  
                Managing Direor, N.C.D.C. Ltd. vs. G.C. Agarwal  
                (Supra)   with   great   respec   we   express   out   doubt  
                about   the   correctness   of   the   decision   inLaxman  
                Tulsiram Vs. Dayalal  Meghji and Co. (Supra).  The  
                Supreme court in Shri Ambika Mills and co,.V. S.B.  
                Bhatt(Supra) has only said that the matter whih lie  
                within   the   jurisdiction   of   the   authority   under   the  
                Paymen   tofWages   Actare   excluded   from   the  
                jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts i.e. claims  
                arising out of the deducting or delay in payment of  
                wages. The jurisdiction conferred on the authority is  
                limited   bySection   15and   it   is   excluded   as  
                prescribed bySection 22i.e.   there is bar of civil  
                suit   only   and   the   provision   cannot   be   read   as   to  
                debar Labour Courtu/s 33C(2)from entertaining  
                such   claim.   The   Supreme   Court   in   application  
                underSection   33C(2)may   also   include   a   claim  
                which is not based on settlement, award or made  
                under the provisions of  Chapter V­A as mentioned  
                inSection 33C (1).the Supreme court inBombay  
                Gas Co. V. Gopal   Bhiv (Supra) has upheld   that  
                order of the Labour Court allowing a similar  claim  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 20  out of 34
                 underSection 33­C(2) although such a claim was  
                barred underSection 15of the Payment of Wages  
                Act there being a limitation of one year under that  
                Act   but   the   claim   was   preferred   after   7   years.Therefore,   it   is   clear   that   the     decision   of   the  
                Division Bench of this Court inLaxman Tulsiram v.  
                Dayalal Meghji and Co (Supra) is not only contrary  
                to the trend of judicial decisions   on the point in  
                question but it also goes contrary to the decisions of  
                the   Supreme   Court   in   cases   mentioned   above.Accordingly,   we   overruled   the   decisions     of   this  
                court inLaxman Tulsiram V. Dayalal Meghji and  
                Co. (Supra) and Managing Director, National  Coal  
                Development   Corporation   Ltd.   v.   G.C.   Agrawal  
                (supra) ...."19.                   Hence, in these circumstances,  I held that   the relief 

claimed in the application by the applicant/workman can be sought 

in the  u/s  33C (2) of theID Actdespite the fact that same relief 

was available to workman in Payment of wages Act.20.             It is undisputed  fact that management started making 

deduction   of   Rs.175/­   from   the   salary   of   workman   from   march,

2008 though the workman was working with the management prior 

to March, 2008 and thus if it proved that said deduction is illegal 

then it is violation of existing right of the workman to get wages 

which   was   paid   to   him   prior   to   illegal   deduction   as   to   get   full 

wages is a right of workers. Therefore, I reject the contention of 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 21  out of 34
 Ld. ARM that relief sought in the application cannot be claim in 

the   application   and   hence   application   u/s   33C(2)ID   Actis   not 

maintainable.21.               What   deduction   are   permissible   from   the   salary   of 

workman is providedu/s 7of  Payment  of Wages Act,1936 which 

are as follows:­7.  Deductions which may be made from wages.(1)  Notwithstanding   the   provisions   of  [theRailways Act, 1989(24 of 1989)] the wages of an  
                  employed   person   shall   be   paid   to   him   without  
                  deductions of any kind except those authorised by  
                  or under this Act.[Explanation   I].--Every   payment   made   by   the  
                  employed person to the employer or his agent shall,  
                  for   the   purposes   of   this   Act,   be   deemed   to   be   a  
                  deduction from wages.Explanation II.--Any loss of wages resulting from  
                  the imposition, for good and sufficient cause, upon  
                  a   person   employed   of   any   of   the   following  
                  penalties, namely:--(i)the   withholding   of   increment   or   promotion  
                  (including   the   stoppage   of   increment   at   an  
                  efficiency bar);(ii) the reduction to a lower post or time scale or to  
                  a lower stage in a time scale;(iii) suspension;shall not be deemed to be a deduction from  
                  wages in any case where the rules framed by the  
                  employer for the imposition of any such penalty are  
                  in conformity with the requirements, if any, which  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 22  out of 34
                   may   be   specified   in   this   behalf   by   the   State  
                  Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]

                  (2)  Deductions   from   the   wages   of   an   employed  
                  person shall be made only in accordance with the  
                  provisions of this Act, and may be of the following  
                  kinds only, namely:--(a) fines;(b)  deductions   for   absence   from   duty;   etc   (b)  
                  deductions for absence from duty;(c) deductions   for   damage   to   or   loss   of   goods  
                  expressly   entrusted   to   the   employed   person   for  
                  custody,   or   for   loss   of   money   for   which   he   is  
                  required to account, where such damage or loss is  
                  directly attributable to his neglect or default;[(d)deductions  for house­accommodation  supplied  
                  by the employer or by Government or any housing  
                  board set up under any law for the time being in  
                  force (whether the Government or the board is the  
                  employer or not) or any other authority engaged in  
                  the   business   of   subsidising   house­accommodation  
                  which may be specified in this behalf by the State  
                  Government by notification in the Official Gazette;(e)  deductions   for   such   amenities   and   services  
                  supplied   by   the   employer   as   the  [***]   State  
                  Government [or any officer specified by it in this  
                  behalf] may, by general or special order, authorise;
                  Explanation­ The word "services" in  [this clause]  
                  does   not   include   the   supply   of   tools   and   raw  
                  materials required for the purposes of employment;

                  [(f)deductions for recovery of advances of whatever  
                  nature (including advances for travelling allowance  
                  or conveyance allowance), and the interest due in  
                  respect thereof, or for adjustment of over­payments  

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 23  out of 34
                   of wages;(ff) deductions for recovery of loans made from any  
                  fund   constituted   for   the   welfare   of   labour   in  
                  accordance   with   the   rules   approved   by   the   State  
                  Government, and the interest due in respect thereof;
                  (fff)deductions   for   recovery   of   loans   granted   for  
                  house­building or other purposes approved by the  
                  State Government, and the interest due in respect  
                  thereof;(g) deductions   of   income­tax   payable   by   the  
                  employed person;(h) deductions required to be made by order of a  
                  Court or other authority competent to make such  
                  order;(i)  deductions   for   subscriptions   to,   and   for  
                  repayment of advances from any provident fund to  
                  which theProvident Funds Act, 1925(19 of 1925),  
                  applies   or   any   recognized   provident   fund   as  
                  defined [in clause (38) ofsection 2of the Income­
                  tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)] or any provident fund  
                  approved   in   this   behalf   by  [the   appropriate  
                  Government],   during   the   continuance   of   such  
                  approval;(j) deductions   for   payments   to   co­operative  
                  societies   as   approved   by [the   appropriate  
                  Government]  [or any officer specified by it in this  
                  behalf] or to a scheme of insurance maintained by  
                  the Indian Post Office;[(k)   deductions,   made   with   the   written  
                  authorisation of the person employed for payment  
                  of any premium on his life insurance policy to the  
                  Life   Insurance   Corporation   of   India   established  
                  under theLife Insurance Corporation Act, 1956(31  
                  of  1956), or  for  the purchase of  securities  of  the  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 24  out of 34
                   Government of India or of any State Government or  
                  for being deposited in any Post Office Savings Bank  
                  in furtherance of any savings scheme of any such  
                  Government;]
                  [(kk)  deductions   made,   with   the   written  
                  authorisation   of   the   employed   person,   for   the  
                  payment of his contribution to any fund constituted  
                  by the employer or a trade union registered under  
                  theTrade Unions Act, 1926(16 of 1926), for  the  
                  welfare of the employed persons or the members of  
                  their   families,   or   both,   and   approved   by   10[the  
                  appropriate Government] or any officer specified  
                  by it in this behalf, during the continuance of such  
                  approval;(kkk) deductions   made,   with   the   written  
                  authorisation of the employed person, for payment  
                  of the fees payable by him for the membership of  
                  any trade union registered under theTrade Unions  
                  Act, 1926(16 of 1926);] 
                   [(l) deductions,   for   payment   of   insurance   premia  
                  on Fidelity Guarantee Bonds; tc" 1[(l) deductions,  
                  for   payment   of   insurance   premia   on   Fidelity  
                  Guarantee Bonds;(m) deductions for recovery of losses sustained by a  
                  railway administration on account of acceptance by  
                  the employed person of counterfeit or base coins or  
                  mutilated or forged currency notes;(n) deductions for recovery of losses sustained by a  
                  railway administration on account of the failure of  
                  the employed person to invoice, to bill, to collect or  
                  to account for the appropriate charges due to that  
                  administration, whether in respect of fares, freight,  
                  demurrage, wharfage and cranage or in respect of  
                  sale of food in catering establishments or in respect  
                  of sale of commodities in grain shops or otherwise; 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 25  out of 34(o) deductions for recovery of losses sustained by a  
                  railway administration on account of any rebates or  
                  refunds incorrectly granted by the employed person  
                  where   such   loss   is   directly   attributable   to   his  
                  neglect or default;]34[(p) deductions,   made   with   the   written  
                  authorisation   of   the   employed   person,   for  
                  contribution to the Prime Minister's National Relief  
                  Fund   or   to   such   other   Fund   as   the   Central  
                  Government   may,   by   notification   in   the   Official  
                  Gazette, specify;35[(q) deductions   for   contributions   to   any  
                  insurance   scheme   framed   by   the   Central  
                  Government for the benefit of its employees.36[(3)  Notwithstanding anything contained in this  
                  Act, the total amount of deductions which may be  
                  made   under   sub­section   (2)   in   any   wage­period  
                  from the wages of any employed person shall not  
                  exceed--(i) in   cases   where   such   deductions   are   wholly   or  
                  partly made for payments to co­operative societies  
                  under clause (j) of sub­section 
                  (2), seventy­five per cent. of such wages, and(ii) in any other case, fifty per cent. of such wages:Provided that where the total deductions authorised  
                  under sub­section (2) exceed seventy­five per cent.  
                  or, as the case may be, fifty per cent. of the wages,  
                  the excess may be recovered in such manner as may  
                  be prescribed.(4) Nothing   contained   in   this   section   shall   be  
                  construed   as   precluding   the   employer   from  
                  recovering from the wages of the employed person  
                  or otherwise any amount payable by such person  
                  under   any   law   for   the   time   being   in   force   other  


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 26  out of 34
                    than37 [theRailways Act, 1989(24 of 1989)].22.                  As discussed above management has made deduction 

of Rs.175/­ per month from the salary of the workman/applicant 

and   said   deduction   does   not   fall   in   any   of   the   head   in   which 

management can make deduction as persection 7of Payment Of 

Wages Act, hence, onus is upon the management to proved that
deduction made by it from the salary is not illegal.23.                  Ld.   AR     of   management   has   contended   since 

management   is   providing   training   to   the   applicant   as   per   the 

mandate   of   thesection   10   (d)of   the   Private   Security   Agency 

(Regulation)   Act,   2005   and   therefore   management   is   entitle   to 

deduct the   amount of Rs. 175/­ from salary of workman to meet 

the   expenses   of   training.   Further   the   ground     taken   by   the 

management is that the workman has agreed to the said deductions. 

Therefore now workman cannot challenged the deduction.24.                  On   the other hand Ld. AR for workman has  argued 

that    Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act no where impose 

obligation on the workman to  get training but it impose obligation 

on the management   to   employ only personnel as security guard 

who has completed training successfully or to provide training to 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 27  out of 34
 personnel before employing them.  Therefore,  if any expenses is to 

be   made   by   the   management   on   providing   the   training   to   the 

security guards, same is to be bear by the management and not by 

the workman. Hence,  any deduction made by the management on 

the ground of providing training is illegal and unjustified as same is 

not permissible in view ofsection 7of the payment of wages Act. 

So far as  other contention that the workman has consented to the 

said deduction of the amount from his  salary and therefore cannot 

challenge   the   deduction.   Ld   AR   has   argued   that   no   such 

undertaking   has   been   given   but   even   it   is   presume   that   the 

undertaking has been given, same is given under the pressure of 

management as workman has no power  equal to the management. 

Hence, the said undertaking given by the workman which allow 

deduction beyondsection  7of payment of wages Act is not valid. 

Hence, in these circumstances, the deduction  of Rs.175/­ monthly 

from salary of applicant made by the  management is illegal.25.                  I have considered the arguments  and gone through the 

record.   The   management   in  the   preliminary   objection    no.2  has 

taken   the ground for deducting the amount of Rs.175/­ from the 

salary   of   the   workman/claimant     that   management   is   a   security 

service   provider   which   provide   security   personnel     to   various 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 28  out of 34
 establishment, clients on contractual basis. The personnel engaged 

for   the   said   purpose     specially   Security   Guards,   Gunmen   and 

Supervisors need a proper and continues training to perform the 

work   efficiently.     Even   in   Private   Security   Agencies   Regulation 

Act, 2005 every private Security Agency has to ensure imparting of 

training and skills to its private security guards and supervisors and 

completion of the prescribed security training successfully is one 

of the   eligibility to be a private security guard.   Since   training 

provided to the security guard is continuous training & an ongoing 

process,   the   training   is   conducted   3­4   times   in   a   month.   The 

duration of the training varies according to the design & module of 

the training program from 4 to 16 hours. Training is conducted  by 

&   under   the   expert   guidance   of   the   ex­servicemen   and   former 

police personnel and the security guard were provided certificate 

for the training under gone by them and with such certificate the 

person become eligible to be a security guard or supervisors and 

may   join   the   job   in   the   private   security  agency.  For  continuous 

training & updation, up gradation & keep up the security guards 

with the ever changing environment a nominal fees is being taken 

by the   management.   Hence the deduction   is not unjustified or 

illegal.LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 29  out of 3426.The  Private     Security Agency  Regulation  Act,  2005has been passed on 23rd June, 2005 and same has come in force on 

15.03.06.  Hence the Act has been passed during the employment 

of workman.  The object of the Act as  appeared from  statement of 

object   and   reason   is     regulate   the   functioning   of     securities 

Agencies.Section  9(2)of the Act provide that:9(2) "Every private security agency shall  
                      ensure imparting of such training and skills to its  
                      private security guards and supervisors as may be  
                      prescribed:Provided   that   the   person   carrying   on   the  
                      business   of   private   security   agency,   before   the  
                      commencement   of   this   Act,   shall   ensure   the  
                      required   training   to   its   security   guards   and  
                      supervisors within a period of one year from the  
                      date of such commencement......."Thus from thesection 9 (2)of the   ID Act make   it 

mandatory to  security agency  to provide  training  to its security 

guards, supervisors.27.                  Furthersection   10   (d)of   the   above   Act   imposed 

obligation  on   the  security agency not  to employ any person   as 

security guard or supervisor unless he has competed training.28.                  The rule 5 of The Private Security Agencies Central 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 30  out of 34
 Model Rules, 2006 provide what kind of training is to be given to 

the security guards29.              I did not find any  provision in the above   Act or rule 

wherein   it   is   mentioned   that   the   management   can   charge   any 

money   from   the   security   guards   or   supervisor   for   providing 

training.The   Actonly   put   obligation   upon   security   agency   to 

provide  training to the security guard and supervisor. In my view 

security   agency     are   free   to     charge   money   from   those 

establishment       who   engaged   security   guards   because   they   are 

getting   trained   personnel   to   provide   security   to   their 

establishments. Why the workers be punished because they have to 

take   training   rather   they   should   be   rewarded   for   taking   training 

because   now   they   are   trained   security   guard   and   would   render 

better   service.       In   my   view     Security   agency   have   no   right   to 

deduct   any   money   from   the   salary   of   Security   guards     even   if 

security   guard   is   benefited   from   training   as   they   got   training 

certificate or it increase their employability.  They are not coming 

to a training school but employer is giving training because it is 

mandatory for him.Section 7of the Payment of Wages Act forbid 

any other deduction from the salary of an employee except those 

provided   in   that   section.   Management   has   failed   to   led   any 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 31  out of 34
 evidence or provide any statutory law which authorize him to make 

deduction on the ground of providing training.30.                  As   far   as   another   contention   of    Ld.   AR   for 

management   that   workman   has   consented   to   the   deduction   and 

given   undertaking   is   concerned,     no   such   undertaking   has   been 

produced by him. His contention that since no rejoinder has been 

filed   by   workman   therefore   content   of   WS/reply   remained   un 

rebutted is not tenable because rejoinder is not part of pleading.Onus   was   on   the   management   to   proved   that   workman   has 

consented   but   management   did   not   choose   to   led   any   evidence. 

Hence management failed to proved that workman consented for 

deduction.31.                  Even otherwise I am fully agree with the   contention 

of the Ld. AR for workman even if worker has given consent for 

the deduction of the Rs.175/­ from his salary that consent is in valid 

as they  might have given the said  undertaking under the pressure 

of losing the job.32.                  Further there cannot be any consent against the statue. 

As   stated   abovesection   7of   Payment   of   Wages   Act   provide 

deductions   which   could   be   made   from   an   employee   salary   any 

deduction beyond the said deduction   no deduction can be made 

LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 32  out of 34
 even by consent of employee as same will be violative ofsection 7of above Act and thus will be  illegal. Workman has no bargaining 

power   and   therefore,   management   can   misuse   to   make   illegal 

deductions if it is allowed to make deduction with the  consent of 

workman   and   even   in   such   situation   will   give   salary   less   than 

minimum wages. It will entirely defeat the object ofPayment of 

Wages Act, Minimum Wages ActorBonded Labour Abolition Actwhich has been passed to save the workers from exploitation of 

management.   Hence,   in   these     circumstances,   I   held   that 

management   has failed to proved that   it is entitle to deduct any 

amount   from   the   wages   of   worker   on   the   ground   of   providing 

training, and same is legal or justified,  where as workman has been 

able   to   prove   that   amount   of   Rs.175/­   per   month   was   illegally 

deducted from his salary and thus he is entitle to recover the same 

from management. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, 

issue no.1 and  2 decided accordingly in favour of the workman and 

against the management.Relief33.          In view of my finding of issue no.1 and 2  I held that  the 

claimant   is   entitled   for   the   amount   which   has   been   illegally 


LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 33  out of 34
 deducted   from     his   salary.   Since   it   is   undisputed   fact   that 

management has deducted Rs. 175/­ per month from date of his 

joining from March, 2008. As per applicant 58 months deduction 

was made  and the amount comes to Rs.10150/­ which has not been 

disputed by management. Therefore, I grant the applicant/workman 

an   amount     of   Rs.   10150/­   (Ten   Thousand   One   Hundred   Fifty 

Only).   Hence,   present   application   is   thus   allowed.   Copy   of   the 

order be sent to the concerned government.File be consigned to record room.Announced in the Open Court 
on 22nd September, 2014               
                                                  (SANJEEV KUMAR)
                                         Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
                                              Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.LCA No.26/14              Kushal Singh Vs. Tops Security  Ltd.                             Page no. 34  out of 34