JUDGMENT :

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter-alia, challenging the order dated 23rd February, 2022 passed in case no. Comp 54 of 2015 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The petitioner is an existing company within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner claims that the respondent no. 4 in his representative capacity had filed a computation case under Section 33C(2) of the said Act, in the year 2015, in Form Q-2 in accordance with Rules 74(3) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Although at the time of institution of the proceeding, there were 22 applicants, however, in course of hearing only 9 applicants, who are the respondents herein, had continued with the proceedings while the rest had withdrawn from the proceeding by issuing ‘no claim’ in favour of the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s case that the applicants had prayed for disbursal of salary and other allowances.

2. The petitioner participated in such proceeding and had filed written statement. On contested hearing, the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, Kolkata was, inter-alia, pleased to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to make payment of not only the salary and bonus but also field expenses to the respective applicants on the basis of the determination made in the said order. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 23rd February, 2022, the present writ application has been filed.

3. Mr. Paul, learned Advocate representing the petitioner by referring to the Provisions of Sections 33C(1) and 33C(2) of the said Act, submits that the aforesaid provisions can only come into play for determination of entitlements, provided the same are in respect of pre-existing entitlements of a workman. He says that disputed question cannot be decided within the framework of a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the said Act. No adjudication of any right is permissible in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the said Act. It is contended that since the respondent nos.4 to 11who were the applicants in the said application, did not carry out the standing instructions by not uploading the field work report in the respective portals, payment of salary in their favour had been stopped. He, however, candidly submits that there is no dispute with regard to factum of respondent nos.4 to 11 being employed by the petitioner.

4. By drawing attention of this Court to the order which is impugned in the present writ application, it is submitted that the determination made by the Second Labour Court with regard to the field expenses is in excess of jurisdiction. That field expenses are paid on actual basis upon furnishing proof of such expenses by the concerned workmen. In the facts as stated hereinabove, the learned Second Labour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in embarking upon an inquiry and adjudicating upon a right which is beyond the scope of authority vested in the Second Labour Court. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another, (2022) 5 SCC 629.

5. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate representing the respondent nos.4 to 11, submits that there is no dispute with regard to the respondent nos.4 to 11 being employed with the petitioner. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the petitioner had illegally withheld the salary of the respondent nos.4 to 11 which prompted the respondent nos.4 to 11 along with other similarly placed workmen to seek computation of their entitlements before the Second Labour Court. By inviting attention of this Court to the order passed by the Second Labour Court, he submits that the salary slips of the respective applicants were exhibited in the proceedings. The petitioner had never disputed the engagement of the respondent nos.4 to 11, as such, the Second Labour Court