JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Recovery Application No.17 of 2005.

1.1 By the impugned order, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner – Bhavnagar Municipality {hereinafter referred to as “the Municipality”} to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.52,800/- being the amount short-paid towards pension i.e. the difference between the amount payable and the amount actually paid towards pension for a period of 44 months (difference @ Rs.1,200/- p.m. from October 2001 to February 2005) with interest at 9% to be calculated from 7.3.2005.

2. So far as the factual aspects are concerned, it emerges from the record that the respondent herein was a permanent employee of the petitioner - Municipality.

2.1 Since the respondent reached the age of superannuation fixed under the Rules, he was declared superannuated, w.e.f. 30.9.2001.

2.2 As per applicable Rules, upon his retirement, the respondent was entitled for pension. Before the payment of pension could actually commence upon completion of the formalities required to be finalised for payment of pension, an industrial dispute, which was raised by the respondent while he was in employment and was registered as Reference (IT) No.48 of 1996, came to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal by award dated 8.11.2001.

3. It emerges from the record that the award was neither implemented nor challenged by the petitioner for almost 4 years.

4. Thus, on the premise that the employer i.e. the petitioner - Municipality had not complied the award dated 8.11.2001 rendered in Reference (IT) No.48 of 1996, the respondent preferred a Recovery Application before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said Recovery Application was registered as Recovery Application No.17 of 2005.

5. The claim in the said recovery application was based on the findings recorded in and the directions given vide said award dated 8.11.2001 passed by the Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.48 of 1996 and it was claimed that though the applicant i.e. present respondent was entitled for payment as per the directions in the award, the payment was not made by the municipality and his pension amount was not fixed and computed as per the learned Tribunal's directions vide award dated 08.11.2001. On such premise, necessary and appropriate directions to make the payment, with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., were prayed for.

6. The said Recovery Application No.17 of 2005 was contested by the petitioner - Municipality. It was claimed by the petitioner before the Trial Court that the Industrial Tribunal had directed, by virtue of the award dated 8.11.2001 passed in Reference (IT) No.48 of 1996, to make the payment to the respondent as per the pay scale applicable to the post of Slum Superintendent and that though the pay scale applicable to the post of Slum Superintendent was Rs.5,500 - 9,000/- and the municipality had accordingly made the payments to the petitioner and also fixed/computed his pension accordingly, however, the respondent was claiming the alleged dues on the basis of altogether different pay scale i.e. the scale of Rs.8,000 - 13,500 which was unjustified.

7. In view of the fact that in entertaining and deciding the recovery application filed under Section 33(C)(1) of the Act, the Labour Court (in the State of Gujarat, the appropriate/State Government has by notification bearing No.KH/SH/1060/IDA-1166-Juh. dated 25.10.1967 [and other similar subsequent notifications in respect of other learned Labour Court for different areas] directed that the learned Labour Court shall exercise the powers under subsection (1) of Section 33) has limited jurisdiction, the Court considered and examined the respondent's claim in light of the findings recorded in and directions passed vide the award dated 8.11.2001. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the lear