JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. — This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 22852 of 2010 quashing the order dated 18.9.2010 passed by the

learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No. 58 of 2008 and directing the appellant to pay the entire amount claimed u/s. 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.

2.Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant has urged various legal grounds placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will be adverted to at the later portion of the judgment and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein he has erroneously quashed the order dated 18.9.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006 u/s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ in short).

3.On 18.9.2010 learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar rejected I.D. Misc. Case No. 58 of 2008 filed by the respondent-workman (arising out of I.D. Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006) praying for computation of his arrears of dues in terms of money payable to him. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is sought to be annulled on the following grounds:

4.The detailed facts are not required to be adverted in the judgment as the same are available in the orders of the Labour Court which have been referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

5.Admittedly the applicant has not worked for the relevant period under the opposite party. Further more no documents had been filed in support of the claim of monetary benefits of salary and other consequential benefits in term of money. According to the settled principle of law as reported in 1995 (I) LLJ 395, the power of Labour Court is like that of an executing Court. It cannot determine the dispute or entitlement in the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act as it is an executing Court on the basis of claim in the absence of prior adjudication in the dispute or recognition by employer.

6.Learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration of the fact that the Labour Court is only to act as an Executing Court on the basis of the pre-adjudicated right or entitlement in favour of the claimant-applicant, it can pass order computing the monetary benefits claimed by respondent-claimant. Such entitlement may be based upon any settlement, award or interpretation of any disputed claim. It is also further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that where the very basis of the claim or entitlement of the workman to a certain monetary and consequential benefits is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition of such claim by the employer, the dispute for such entitlement is not incidental to the benefit or claim and therefore, it is clearly outside the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act proceeding. This important aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Hence the order impugned, is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law. Thereafter placing reliance on the provision under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the two questions material for consideration of the aforesaid provision pertain to decision on the entitlement of the workman which, in other words, mean maintainability of the claim and computation of the benefit in terms of money in case the claim is maintainable in law. Evidently, the oral and documentary evidence led by the respondent-workman and the arguments made before the Labour Court do not enable him to maintain his application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge to the Management to pay the amount as claimed by the workman, in the application filed before the Labour Court is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

7.Another ground of attack of the impugned order is that the claim applic