ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Labour Court (ID Act), Durg in case No. 77/ID Act/2011 Civil in the case of B. Sanyasi and Ors. vs. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, by which the learned Labour Court allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and has directed the petitioner for payment of salary for the period July 2008 to December 2009, for 19 months salary to respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs.1,24,665/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.8,335/- @ 7000 per month. Similarly, respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.1,15,732/- after adjusting the amount 7,776 @ 6500/- per month and Rs.1,14,228/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.18,772 to respondent No.3 and total amount of Rs.3,53,460/- within a period of one month failing which interest @ 12% from the date of order till the actual payment is made.

2. Brief facts of the case as reflected from the record are that the respondent No. 1 to 3 have filed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 before the Labour Court, Durg which was registered as 77/I.D.Act/2011 Civil mainly contending that respondent No.1 B. Sanyasi and Respondent No. 3 were working as Sale Executive on the contract basis for the period of two years. The respondent No. 2 received the salary @ Rs.6,500/- per month and they have employed with the Bank in 2008. The petitioner has not paid salary and other allowances from July 2008 to December 2009 and they have received only two months salary @ Rs.7000/- per month, therefore, they have claimed the amount as mentioned in the application filed before the Labour Court. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the respondents have served registered notice upon the Bank on 22.09.2010 which was replied, but no salary was paid therefore, they have prayed for issuance of direction to the petitioner Bank for payment of salary for the period which was unpaid to Bank.

3. The respondent Bank has filed its reply mainly contending that an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act is not maintainable as there is no claim extended against the Bank. The objection regarding maintainability of joint application as well as plea of delay and latches is also taken. It has also been contended that respondent No. 1 was separated from the bank on 15.10.2008, respondent No. 2 was separated from the bank on 09.09.2009 and respondent No.3 was separated from the bank on 09.09.2009 as they were working against the interest of the bank. It has been further contented that whatever period they have worked with the bank, the amount has been paid by the bank in their accounts and no amount is payable to them by the Bank. The petitioners has also taken objection about the maintainability of the application under Section 33 (C)(2) of the I.D. Act contending that since no money is due for payment to the respondents 1 to 3 and there is dispute about entitlement of claim the application is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

4. On the pleading of the parties, learned Labour Court has framed as many as three issues.

(i) Whether the application filed by the respondents is not maintainable in the light of the provisions contained in Section 33 (C) of the ID Act?

(ii) Whether the application filed by the respondents is barred by the limitation?

(iii) Whether the respondents are entitled to get amount from the bank if yes how much amount is to be paid?

5. Respondent No. 1 to 3 have examined themselves by filing the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC wherein they have reiterated the stand which they have taken in the application filed before the Labour Court. The respondents after filing of the written statement remained absent; therefore, the Labour Court has passed the ex-parte award on 07.01.2014 directing the Bank to pay the amount as prayed in t