( 1 ) RULE. Service of Rule is waived by Mr. Rathod for the respondents. Whether or not the Labour Court under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (I. D. Act) is competent for passing order after determining the amount of gratuity payable to the workman under the settlement, is the important question raised before this Court in this batch of petitions under Arts. 226/227 of the constitution of India. Incidentally, it also leads to interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the provisions of Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) has questioned the legality and validity of the common order and judgment recorded by the Labour Court, Junagadh, on 28-12-1995, in Recovery Application Nos. 206 of 1994 to 225 of 1994 exercising powers under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act in favour of the respondents-workmen. Some of them are retired drivers and conductors. The respondents-workmen by filing recovery applications under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act claimed gratuity amount in view of the settlement between the parties. Twenty retired workmen moved the Labour Court for claiming the amount of gratuity payable to them in terms of the settlement. On their superannuation, the computation amount of gratuity paid by the petitioner- corporation was not in accordance with the settlement. Therefore, the respondentsworkmen claimed difference of amount of gratuity paid to them and payable by the petitioner-Corporation in terms of the settlement.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-Corporation resisted the recovery applications. The corporation also raised the dispute about the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and maintainability of the recovery applications. According to the contention of the petitioner-Corporation, in view of the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act. It was requested by the Corporation to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the Labour court has jurisdiction or not.

( 4 ) THE Labour Court after considering the facts and circumstances and hearing both the sides and examining the relevant proposition of law, rejected the preliminary contention and allowed the recovery applications holding that it has jurisdiction and it is competent for the workmen to maintain recovery applications under Sec. 33- c (2) of the I. D. Act in view of the settlement between the parties.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation Mr. Munshaw has reiterated the said contention for being rejected. The view taken by the Labour Court is quite legal and proper. This Court is satisfied that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the Labour Court is justified.

( 6 ) PLACING reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of punjab v. Labour Court, Jullunder, AIR 1979 SC 1981, it was contended that the payment of Gratuity Act enacts a complete Code containing detailed provisions covering all the essential features of a scheme for payment of gratuity and therefore, application for recovery of the amount of gratuity under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act is not maintainable and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the recovery application. This submission, prima facie, may appear to be subtle, but not sound and sustainable. It may be noted that in the case before the Supreme Court, the claim for an amount of gratuity was made under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The claim was disputed and therefore, an application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act came to be filed before the Labour Court, Jullunder. The Labour Court made order dated April 30, 1975 that the respondents were entitled to gratuity claimed by them. Writ petition was filed by the employer before the High Court of punjab and Haryana, which came to be dismissed in limine. The matter was then carried before the Supreme Court by f