The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the requirement of prior adjudication or existing entitlement for a workman to approach the Labour Court for the computation of money or benefits.

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior assistant by Mrs. A. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sarma and Mr. A. Sarma learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, the Management, Sokalatinga Tea Estate.

2. The validity and the correctness of the order dated 30.10.1992 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Misc. (J) Case No. 1/88 has been assailed in this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction and power of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The impugned order was passed by the Labour Court as mentioned above on the basis of a petition moved by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act').

4. For ready reference of the Section 33C(2) of the Act may be reproduced as under:

...

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer and money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months....

5. An ordinary reading of the above provision goes to show that whenever any workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, such workman can approach the Labour Court under the above mentioned provision. In other words, the applicability of this section is closely confined to the entitlement. To move an application under the above provision of law the condition precedent is that there must be a prior adjudication or existing entitlement. The language of this provision above mentioned is clear and loud. It may be noticed that in entertaining an application under Section 33C(2), the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the award so passed by the Presiding Officer.

6. Before delving upon the scope and ambit of provision of Section 33C(2) of the Act as mentioned above it will be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief:

7. Initially a reference was made before the Labour Court under Government Notification dated 11.4.1979 to decide the following issues:

(1) Whether the management of Socklatinga Tea Estate is justified in terminating the services of Shri L. Hazarika with effect from 18.2.1977?

(2) If not, is he entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof?

8. Under Reference Case No. 24/79 the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court by his award dated 14.9.1984, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and upon appreciation of the witnesses examined by the rival parties came to a find that the termination of the workman was unjustified, arbitrary, bad in law and against the principle of natural justice and accordingly by the said award, the petitioner was reinstated in his post with a liberty to the management to frame fresh charges, if so advised by treating him as a permanent employee after his reinstatement.

9. However, the Labour Court did not pass any order as regards the back wages in answering the two issues above mentioned under reference.

10. Conceded, the petitioner did not challenge the said award dated 14.9.1984 and allowed the same to attain its finality.

11. Thereupon, in 1988 the petitioner preferred an application being MC No. 1/88 seeking back wages under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by the impugned order rejected the prayer holding that since there was no award as regards the payment of any back wages for the period culminating in joining the service on reinstatement, the petitioner was not entitled to get any such benefit of back wages. The Labour Court by a well reasoned order has obs