1. The employer-KLE Society has filed this batch of Writ Petitions against the respondent-workmen, Instructors / Teachers aggrieved by the order dated 28th December 2011 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, deciding the preliminary Issue Nos.2 and 4 only regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide such applications of the respondent - workmen under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The issue involved before the Labour Court was as to (i) Whether the respondents, most of whom, except Mr.Siddappa G.Namba who is still continuing in the service, had already retired from the service of the employer-KLE Society before filing of the applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act, were entitled to file applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act; and (ii) Whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to entertain such applications for deciding the claim of the respondents that they were entitled to claim parity with the Government employees in similar positions with regard to difference of Dearness Allowance, Encashment of Earned Leave, etc. (iii) Whether after ending of the jural relationship of employer and employee after their retirement, such exemployees could still approach the Labour Court for such relief under Section 33C(2) of the Act and (iv) whether without there being any pre-existing admitted liability to pay such difference of Dearness Allowance, encashment of Earned Leave, etc., the Labour Court could grant such relief within the ambit and scope of Section 33C(2) of the Act.

3. The Labour Court decided these issues in favour of the respondents-employees including the retired employees also and distinguished the various Supreme Court judgments cited before the Labour Court from the side of the Employer, that the Labour Court could not decide these issues under Section 33C(2) of the Act with the following observations:

“ The learned counsel for the opponents relied upon the decision reported in LLJ – 1 – 1995 –SC – 395 _ in case of Muncipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ganesh Razak and another, in which their Lordships have held that the power of Labour court is that of an executing court and Labour Court cannot determine the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim in the absence of Prior Adjudication or recognition by employer and therefore the application U/sec.33C(2) is not maintainable. The facts of the said case are that daily rated/casual workers of daily Municipal Corporation were claiming wages on par with Regular employees on the principal of “equal pay for equal work”. In that case the workmen were working as daily wagers, who cannot claim wages on par with regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In the case on hand the applicant is claiming the above said benefits as a statutory right recognized by the opponents as mentioned above. It is well settled that daily wagers or casual workers cannot be treated on par with regular employees in any respect. Therefore the principle laid down in the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case on hand.

The learned counsel for the opponents relied upon the decision reported in 2009 –I –LLJ–149 (SC) in case of Rajastan SRTC and Ors V/s. Mohan Singh in which their Lordships have held that Civil Courts also have jurisdiction to entertain the suit where the right claimed by the plaintiff was under common law or under a statute, other than one creating a new right and a forum from enforcing it. Such as the Road Corporation Act, 1951. It was alleged by the appellant in that case that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit pertaining to dismissal of the driver. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held civil court has also jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that only the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the applicant and the opponents. I have already discussed above that without prejudice to rem