1. The petitioner in these two Writ Petitions is the common management in C.P.Nos. 52 of 2003 and 6 of 2004 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. They are challenging the common order passed by the Labour Court in those two claim petitions, which is produced as Ext. P3 in both the Writ Oetitions. The facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions may be summarized as under.

2. Respondents 1 to 6 in W.P.(C) No. 10079/2009 and respondents 1 to 4 in the other were workmen employed by the petitioner. According to the workmen, in retaliation of their raising claim for minimum wages, they were terminated from service on false allegations. They filed the claim petitions before the Labour Court for recovery of the difference between minimum wages payable to them and the actual wages paid, difference in subsistence allowance payable to them calculated on the basis of minimum wages and overtime wages for overtime work done by them. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner took the contention that the eligibility of the workmen for minimum wages itself is an industrial dispute, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, since such proceedings are in the nature of execution proceedings, in which, only pre-existing rights only can be enforced. Overruling the said objections, the Labour Court proceeded to compute the amounts due to the workmen under the three heads and directed the petitioner to pay the same to the workmen by Ext. P3 common order. That is under challenge in these two Writ Petitions.

3. The petitioner’s contention is that the powers of the Labour Court under S.33C(2) is confined to computing the amounts due as a benefit, which is capable of being computed in terms of money. That presupposes a right in the workman for a benefit which has already been adjudicated by a competent authority. When the right which the workman seeks to enforce under S.33C(2) is disputed by the management, the Labour Court cannot, by itself, adjudicate the existence of such right and such adjudication can be done only in a reference under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have relegated the workmen to their remedy by way of raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, since the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is the contention raised by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.K. Singh & Ors. v. Presiding Officer & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 457, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Ors. ((1995) 1 SCC 235), State of U.P and another v. Brijpal Singh (2005) 8 SCC 58) and H.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ranjeeth Singh & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 241, as also the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Haridas v. Labour Court (2006 (2) KLT 641) in support of his contention.

4. The counsel for the workmen would contend that simply because the management disputes the eligibility of the right to claim the benefit, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not ousted. According to him, not only benefits, right for which has been adjudicated by a competent authority, but also statutory benefits, which can be computed in terms of money can also be enforced under S.33C(2). He points out that admittedly, the petitioner is an establishment registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The Government has issued a notification under the Minimum Wages Act fixing minimum wages payable to employees of shops and commercial establishments. The management is statutorily bound to pay minimum wages as notified by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the right of the workmen to receive minimum wages as so notified has already been statutorily recognised and crystallized. The wages paid by the management to the workmen is also known. Therefore, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to c