The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of entitlement for arrears of salary claimed under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act without prior adjudication or decision on the entitlement.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 order of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in CP No. 16/89 dated 13.3.1990. The petitioner is a Compounder attached to the field hospital of M/s. Grassim Industries Limited, Mavoor. The first respondent is the Personnel Manager of the said company. The petitioner filed the above petition under S.33C(T) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') claiming the arrears of salary of Rs.67,171.75 in respect of the period from 13.7.1985 to 31.10.1988. His case is that there was an agreement between the management of the Gwalior Rayons Staff Association on 13.7.1985 by which the management had agreed to pay the salary of the entire members of the staff who are not directly involved in the strike. Though he is entitled to receive the aforesaid salary, it was not disbursed to him inspite of repeated requests. That was the background for approaching this court by the petitioner with this writ petition.

2. S.33C(2) of the Act is ectyped hereunder for elucidating the points at issue:

"33C. Recovery of money due from an employer -

(1) ...................................

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any 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:

Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary to expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit."

Under the above provision, the Labour Court is authorised to decide the dispute between the workman and employer if two conditions are fulfilled. Those conditions are (1) The workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and (2) The question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed. When the above question arises, the workman may apply to the Labour Court for determination of the amount due or as the case may be, the amount at which such benefit should be computed under ' R.62 (2) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The fundamental requisite for attracting the provisions contained in S.33C(2) and R.62(2) is that the workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money from the employer. Then the Labour Court shall decide the question as to the amount of money due or as to the amount to which such benefit should be computed. In this context the difference between the words 'any money' and 'amount of money due' as also the words 'any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money' and 'amount at which such benefit should be computed', may be noted. When we say 'any money' or 'any benefit' it presupposes the existence of a right to 'money' or 'benefit'. When such right exists, the Labour Court shall quantify 'amount of money due' or 'amount at which such benefit should be computed'. In other words, in the absence of a pre-existing right to 'any amount' or 'any benefit' the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between workman and employer under S.33C(2) of the Act.

3. The Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1974 SC 1604) has considered the nature of the proceeding under S.33C(2) of the Act. It said:

"It is now well settled that a proceeding under S.33C(2) is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman