JUDGMENT :

1. Since the common question and issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are analogously heard and decided by the common judgment.

2. Issue RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the Labour Court, Anand has erroneously and illegally rejected the Recovery Applications filed by the workmen claiming the differential amount of D.A. and increments rendered by each of the workman from 31.10.2003 till 24.05.2004.

4. Since, the petitioners were not paid the amount of D.A and increments for the aforesaid period, they filed recovery applications in the year 2006. The Labour Court, Anand partly allowed the same vide orders dated 06.04.2015, which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.15096 of 2015 and allied matters filed by the respondent–Corporation. By the order dated 25.04.2018, the writ petitions were allowed, by setting aside the order of the Labour Court, and the matters were remanded to the Labour Court with a liberty to raise all available contentions of both the sides. After the remand, the Labour Court, Anand, has passed the impugned orders rejecting the recovery applications.

5. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya appearing for the petitioners that all the petitioners applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme, and the same was also granted to them, and all the petitioners were relieved from service w.e.f 31.10.2003. However, though they were continued in service till 24.05.2004, they were not paid the increments and D.A. and hence, they were compelled to file an applications under Section 33C(2)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the I.D.Act”). It is submitted that the petitioners are legally entitled to such undisputed amount, hence no prior adjudication was required. Thus, he has submitted that the Labour Court, Anand was not justified in rejecting such applications by holding that since there is no prior determination of the amount through any adjudication process, the petitioners cannot claim such amount directly by filing applications under the provision of Section 33(C) (2) of the I.D.Act. No further submission is advanced.

6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the petitioners do not have pre-existing rights to get yearly increment and D.A. It is submitted that since the claim of the petitioners is not adjudicated by the Labour Court, they cannot claim the amount by filing applications under Section 33C(2)(2) of the I.D.Act. It is submitted that the petitioners’ had tendered their resignation and accordingly, their resignation was accepted by the respondents and they were relieved from service on 31.10.2003. However, since the State Government did not allot the funds to pay the concerned employees under the VRS, there was bona fide delay in making the payment. It is submitted that after relieving the petitioners from service in order to see that they may get the livelihood and may not suffer, they were asked to work and wages were paid separately from 01.11.2003 to 24.05.2004 and the same were accepted by all of them. It is submitted that after the acceptance of their resignation, they cannot be said to be in regular service and hence, they do not have any right to claim yearly increment and D.A. declared by the State Government. It is also submitted that after having accepted the wages for the said period in the year 2004, the applications are filed belatedly after a period in the year 2006. Thus, it is submitted that since there was no prior adjudication, and pre-existing right and the claims are disputed, the order passed by the Labour Court, may not be disturbed. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Beverage (P) Limited vs. Sureshchand reported in 1978 (2) SCC