Petition is by the management assailing the order passed on the application filed under S.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the Labour Court, Bangalore in Appln.No.12/1995 on 14.2.2006.

The applicant worked under the petition management since February 1980 as an Office Boy till he resigned during April 1995 expressing his grievance that due to the ill-treatment, he resigned. Thereafter, he filed an application under S.33 (c)(2) of the Act to settled his benefits. Labour Court by order dated 8.5.2003, dismissed the application against which, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, having observed that the Labour Court failed to apply its mind to the evidence already on record and giving liberty to the parties to adduce evidence, remanded the matter back to the Labour court. On such remand, the award dated 14.2.2006 came to be passed by the Labour Court. Hence, this petition by the management raising several grounds.

Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

According to the petitioner’s counsel, Labour Court erred in not noticing that it is an application under S.33 (c)(2) of the Act. It is in the nature of an execution proceedings. Pursuant to adjudication of the claim by the Tribunal/Labour Court, application under S.33 (c)(2) is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, without admitting the claim, application under S.33(c)(2) is maintainable. It is stated the Labour Court erred in not noticing the minimum wages paid for the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 and also from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995 i.e., difference of Rs.828/- and Rs.1100/- respectively and according to them, they have paid more than the minimum wages. The Labour Court has also erred in not noticing that bonus is not applicable to the case of this petitioner as such, his claim ought to have been rejected. Even the leave encashment ordered to be paid is erroneous.

Per contra, counsel representing the workman submitted that there is no bar for the Labour Court to adjudicate a statutory claim. The claim of the workman is for more than Rs.75,000/- but, Labour Court only taking into consideration the non-payment of minimum wages, leave encashment and also bonus for the said period, has awarded a small amount. Although application under S.33(c)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings, but in a summary inquiry having determined the same, has passed an order and there is no violation of the provisions of S.33(c)(2) much less the order does not call for interference.

In the light of the argument advanced, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order requires interference.

In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak & Anr – 1995 (1) SCC 235, the Apex Court with reference to S.33 (c)(2) application has held that it cannot adjudicate a dispute of entitlement or basis of claim of the workman. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is bassed. It is also stated that without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workman to be paid at the same rate as the regular employees. The proceedings for computation of arrears of Wages claimed on that basis is not maintainable.

In the case of Ram Kewal Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad & Anr- 1997 (2) LLJ 605, it is held that S.33(c)(1) and (2) application under the Industrial Disputes Act are independent of each other and the scope under S.33 (c)(2) is wider and takes within its purview the case of the workman who claims any benefit which could be computed in terms of money just as an executing court is competent the dues. The Labour Court is also competent to construe the settlement, award or a statue under which the right is claimed.

In the instant case, on noticing the order passed by the Labour Court, in computing the income although it has acted as an executing court, as a matter of entitlement it has proceeded to calculate by way of arithmetical calculations. Although the management has