The Labour Court has jurisdiction to pass an order under section 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to compute the benefits of a workman based on his existing right, dependent on the interpretation of the circulars of the Railway Board issued from time to time.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, seeks the quashing of the order dated 18th October, 1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi in LCA No. 188/83.

( 2 ) THERE are 47 writ petitions and though the dates and amounts claimed may differ, the points in issue are the same. The impugned order has been passed in each case by Mr. 0. P. Singla and his conclusions and reasons for arriving at them are identical. Consequently, this judgment will cover all the cases.

( 3 ) THE petitioner started working with the Northern Railway on 26th September, 1977. "was employed as a casual labourer underchief Singal and Telecommunication Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway (to be REFERRED TO to hereinafter in short as "cste (Con)" ). He was employed for more than 120 days and consequently claimed Rs. 575. 15p as balance payment for the period 28th January, 1978 to 28th March, 1978 on the basis of the scale rate of Rs. 196-232 instead of daily rate wages paid to him. According to him he was entitled to be treated as a temporary workman on completion of 120 days work and to emoluments on that basis. His stand is that he was transferred from place to place and was a casual labourer on open line and not a casual labourer on a project.

( 4 ) THE management. contested his claim and asserted that be was working since 26th September, 1977 at Rs. 4. 50 per day as acasual khalasi on a construction project and was not entitled to the above mentioned money.

( 5 ) MR. O. P. Singla, who heard the matter, by the impugned order allowed the claim of the workman. He held that the order dated 30th August/3rd September, 1974 by which the CSTE (Con) declared that "all the works under CSTE (C) shall be deemed as PROJECTS" was issued "to escape financial liability" at the cost of "being unfair to casual labour" who are working on construction and not employed on projects, and in the teeth of the Railway Board s directions. Afteradverting to the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Robert D souza v. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another, AIR 1982 SC 854, he held that every construction work is not a project and that the CSTE s (Con) declaration that all works under it would be deemed to be projects was unjustified and this could not be done without consideration of the facts.

( 6 ) MS. Rachna Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, made three submissions. First, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in determining the rights of parties in a matter under section 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after REFERRED TO to as the "act" ).

( 7 ) SECONDLY, the Labour Court was not justified in negativing the above mentioned on the basis of the judgment in L. Robert D souza (supra) as the declaration that the work was a project was made after examining the facts.

( 8 ) THIRDLY, there would be some difficulty in implementing the order of the Labour Court as it might result in discrimination, because workmen of the same category had approached the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others. Civil Writ Petition No. 147 and 320 to 369 of 1983, decided on 18th April, 1985, wherein a scheme had been worked out to give benefits from 1st January, 1981.

( 9 ) MR. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the workman, in reply submitted that the impugned order is valid and within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court: the judgment in D. Souza s case (supra) is clear and has been correctly applied ; and some difficulties in implementation are immaterial especially as there is on decision by the Supreme Court on merits in Inder Pal Yadav s case (supra ).

( 10 ) IN order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to examine the scope and ambit of section 33c of the Act and the various circulars issued by the Railway authorities. Section 33c (