M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) THE Appellant - Writ Petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act) claiming the salary for the period he was out of service due to orders of termination passed by the Writ petitioner - Respondent and which orders of termination were declared to be illegal in the suit O. S. No. 5 of 1983 filed by the appellant before the Court of the viii Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. By the said decree, the orders of termination passed by the writ petitioner-respondent Corporation were declared as illegal and invalid and that the Appellant should be treated as in continuous service. The petitioner also claimed the benefits under Circular no. PD-I0/1980-81, dated 24-4-1980 to which he was held entitled by orders passed inhis favour in W. P. No. 5710of 1989 dated 7-7-1989. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner was allowed by the Labour Court and aggrieved against the same, the Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Corporation. By the impugned Orders, learned single Judge, upheld the writ petitioner responden s challenge to the maintainability of the appellant s claim in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act on the ground that Section 33-C (2) of the Act is applicable only when the sum is ascertained and thus set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court. It is against this Order of the learned single judge this Appeal has been filed.

( 2 ) IT cannot be denied that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on mat basis in exercise of its power under Section 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 requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court s power under section 33-C (2) like that of the Executing Court s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. [see 1995 (1) SCC 235)].

( 3 ) IT has been held by the Apex Court in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. , vs. Gopal Bhiva, that the proceedings contemplated by Section 33-C (2) are analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court, like the Executing Court in the execution proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, would be competent to interpret the award on which the claim is based. It is obvious that the power of Executing Court is only to implement the adjudication already made by a decree and not to adjudicate a disputed claim which requires adjudication for its enforcement in the form of decree.

( 4 ) IN Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. , vs. Rameswar, the supreme Court after tracing the legislative history of the relevant provisions of the Act viz. , Section 33-A which was inserted in 1950 and Section 33-C in 1956 observed that the Legislature recognised the need of individual workman of a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights without having to take recourse to Section 10 (1) of the Act and without having to depend on their union to espouse their case and held as under:"it is clear that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer".

( 5 ) IN State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. R. L. Kandelwal, it was held that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under Section 33-C (2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately the subject matter of an industrial dispute which requires a reference under Section 10 of the Act.

( 6 ) IT is in the light of the above legal position as to the jurisdiction of the labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, that the contention

Click Here to Read the rest of this document