Honble YADAV, J.–The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 30th of April, 1994 passed by Labour Court, Bikaner-respondent No.1, directing the petitioners under sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) to pay Rs.12,689/- as arrears of salary to respondent No.2, Bhagwat.

(2). The facts relevant for decision of this petition can be briefly Stated as under:

(3). The respondent No.2 claimed himself to be Garden Supervisor in the proceedings under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.33-C of the Act of 1947, on the other hand according to the petitioners, he was appointed as a `Mali Grade-II in the Depart- ment. In the aforesaid proceedings before Labour Court, Bikaner it is alleged by respondent No. 2, Bhagwat that he is entitled for regular monthly pay-scale of Rs. 295-500 whereas according to the petitioners his monthly pay-scale was inadvertently fixed Rs. 295-500 in place of Rs.240-370 which was detected in audit report and excess payment of salary to him was ordered to be recovered from him against which Union of workman Bhagwat respondent No.2 raised dispute under the Act of 1947. In the said proceedings Conciliation Officer for the purpose of bringing about an amicable settlement between the employer and employee investigated the present dispute and all matters affecting its merit and also made sincere efforts for settlement. On failure of settlement between the parties he sent a full report se- tting forth the steps taken by him to the State Government. The State Government in exercise of its power under sub-sec.(5) of Sec.12 of the Act of 1947 declined to make a reference to Labour Court after recording reasons in support of refusal of reference and communicated on 1.11.88 Annex.3 to the writ petition to the parties.

(4). irrespective of aforesaid serious dispute about entitlement of the salary of respondent No.2, the Labour Court passed the award with the aforementioned direction against the petitioners which is impugned before this Court by filing the present petition.

(5). The core question involved in the present writ petition is regarding jurisdiction of Labour Court under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 33-C of the Act of 1947. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that for passing an order under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.33-C of the Act of 1947, two conditions precedent must co- exist at the time of initiation of proceedings. Firstly, the accused person must demonstrate before the Labour Court about his undisputed entitlement of benefit and secondly, he is required to establish that the undisputed entitlement of benefit is capable to be computed in terms of money and is also due on the employer. According to the learned counsel for petitioners unless the aforesaid two conditions are established in the present case, the Labour Court, Bikaner has no jurisdiction to pass the award impugned. He also invited my attention to Annex.3 dated 1.11.88 as a proof relating to reconciliation proceeding under Sec.12 of the Act of 1947 and refusal of reference by State Government in exercise of its power under sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act of 1947.

(6). It is borne out from perusal of Annex.3 dated 1.11.88 that claim of fixation of salary of respondent No.2 of Rs.295-500 was vehemently disputed by the employer-Department, regarding which a detail enquiry was made by Conciliation Officer under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.12 of the Act of 1947. As reconciliation failed, the Conciliation Officer after closing investigation sent to the State Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about an amicable settlement thereof, together with a full Statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at.

(7). It is further evident from perusal of Annex.3 dated 1.11.88 that after receipt of re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document