The function of the Labour court in considering a claim under S.33(c)(2) is limited to determining the amount of money or quantum of benefit computed in terms of money which the workman is entitled to receive from the employer under a settlement or Award. Additionally, a workman, who was employed during the period in respect of which he claims relief, is entitled to file a claim under S.33(c)(2) even though he is no longer employed at the time of the application.

1. The writ petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in its Water Transport section. He had been working as Assistant Traffic Inspector, in the water transport section at Ernakulam during 1963 to 1978.

2. The Traffic Inspector on duty at Ernakulam died early in 1964, and the petitioner had been directed to look after the duties of the Traffic Inspector also in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Traffic Inspector. This is seen from the orders Ext. P1 and P2 issued by the Water Transport officer in June, 1964 and August, 1964 respectively.

3. An Industrial dispute between the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and its workmen was referred for arbitration in 1967 under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Writ petitioner also participated in the Arbitration Proceedings, which was conducted by Sri G. Kumara Pillai, a retired judge of this court who had been appointed as Arbitrator in the matter. The petitioner had claimed before the Arbitrator that he was entitled to be paid additional emoluments for the period during which he was in charge of the duties of Traffic Inspector in addition to his duties as Asst. Traffic Inspector.

The Arbitrator passed his award on 12-12-68 and it became enforceable in 1969.

4. Regarding the claims of the petitioner the Arbitrator had held in the Award as follows:

'The Asst. Traffic Inspector who looks after the duties of traffic inspector in addition to his own duties, has further to be paid a special pay of Rs. 25/- per mensem in consideration of his additional work.'

The Award was to be effective from 1-1-1966. There is no dispute that the Asst. Traffic Inspector referred to in the Award is the present petitioner. Notwithstanding repeated representations submitted by the petitioner claiming benefit due to him under the Award the special pay of Rs. 25/-was not disbursed to him and the representations filed by the petitioner were finally rejected by the General Manager of the 1st respondent corporation as per Ext. P5 dated 10-2-72. Thereupon the petitioner filed a claim petition C.P. No. 22/ 72 before the Labour court, Quilon under S.33 (c) (2) of the Act claiming benefits awarded to him as per the Award. Ext. P6 is the copy of the claim petition. The labour court by its order Ext. P8 rejected the petition holding that the petitioner's claim for special pay though supported by the Award was not maintainable on the merits, because, in the view of the Labour court, the Water Transport officer had acted without jurisdiction in issuing the orders, Exts. P1 and P2 directing the petitioner to discharge the duties attached to the post of Traffic Inspector also in addition to his functions as Assistant Traffic Inspector. On this basis the Labour court proceeded to hold that the Arbitrator was wrong in thinking that the orders Exts. P-1 and P2 were validly issued by the Water Transport officer on behalf of the corporation, and that as a matter of fact the petitioner's workload had not increased consequent on the abolition of the Traffic Inspector's post since another post of Asst. Traffic Inspector had been created simultaneously with the abolition of the Traffic Inspector's post. On this reasoning the labour court took the view that the claim of the petitioner for payment of additional remuneration, which was upheld by the Arbitrator in the Award, was unsustainable on the merits. It is on this ground that the labour court dismissed the claim petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded in his contention that a claim under S.33(c)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and that the function of the labour court while considering such claim is limited only to the determination of the question as to what, if any, is the amount of money or quantum of benefit computed in terms of money which the workman is entitled to receive from the employer under a settlement or Award concerned. Such determinatio