The nature of power or the scope of enquiry under Section 33-C(2) is limited and pertains to a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.-

1. This common order shall dispose of all the 18 matters bearing WPC Nos. 2505/2007, 2506/2007, 2507/2007, 2508/2007, 2509/2007, 2517/2007, 2518/2007, 2536/2007, 2609/2007, 4968/2007, 4969/2007, 4970/2007, 4971/2007, 4972/2007, 4973/2007, 4974/2007, 4975/2007, 5008/2007.

2. The brief conspectus of the facts as set out in these petitions are as under:

That the petitioners/workmen are working in the category of Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ like Choudhury, Mali, Chowkidar, Sweeper, Machine man, Hedgman, Pump Operator, Blacksmith, Bhisti, Bullackman,Asstt. Pump Driver, Painter, Beldar, Driver, fitter, tech. supervisor etc. As per the petitioners they are entitled to the cost including stitching charges and quantum of liveries as per orders issued by the Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Government of India and adopted by the management of MCD from time to time to compensate the workers for liveries and stitching charges used for the work of MCD. The allowances are granted to the employees in addition to their pay for the purpose of meeting some specific requirement connected with the service rendered. The petitioners/workmen being low paid employees of MCD were granted the benefits of supply of liveries and also washing allowance to wash those liveries provided by the management of MCD.

Petitioners/workmen have purchased the liveries themselves as the management did not supply these liveries and only paid the washing allowance to wash those liveries procured by the petitioners workmen themselves. The petitioners filed separate applications before the Labour Court to claim the benefit of liveries (Uniform and stitching charges). MCD in their written statement had taken a preliminary objection to contend that No. 1 that 33C(2) application was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 6.3.2007 disposed of these petitions by observing that the same are not maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act, 1947. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner preferred these petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash award dated 06/3/2007 and direct the Ld. Labour Court to decide all issues together after adjudicating the main dispute on its merits.

3. The short question arising in this batch of writ petitions filed by the different category of employees working with the MCD in the C & D groups is as to whether the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act could be rejected after framing a preliminary issue on the maintainability, without deciding the entire claim on its merits.

4. Mr. Varun Prasad counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that the pre-existing rights of the petitioners flows from their own policy of the MCD announced from time to time through various circulars to provide liveries, stitching expenses and washing allowance etc. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that such a policy of the respondent MCD forms part of the service conditions of the petitioners and therefore, the same creates a pre-existing right in the petitioners to claim various amounts spent by these employees towards the purchase of liveries and towards the cost of stitching. Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the tribunal fell in grave error by framing a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the claims filed by all these petitioners without following the proper procedure to decide the claim of the petitioners on its own merits after proper adjudication. Counsel thus submitted that piecemeal adjudication of the reference without going into the merits of the claim is a noval method adopted by the Court. The counsel urged that the tribunal erred in not appreciating that the grant of uniform and stitching charges are part of service conditions of the workmen and Labour Court has jurisdiction to compute such benefits in terms of money un