Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is wider than Section 33-C(1) and applies to both monetary and non-monetary benefits. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine the amount due to a workman under Section 33-C(2) even if the right to the benefit is disputed by the employer.

T. H. B. Chalapathi, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, Faridabad in Application No.140 of 1980 dated December 17, 1981.

2. The petitioner filed an application for computation of his back wages, bonus and leave wages from December 1, 1973 to August 31, 1980 amounting to Rs.21,270.00 . The petitioner was working with the 2nd respondent company. His services were terminated on December 1, 1973, Thereupon the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad. In Reference No.120 of 1974 vide order dated April 25, 1978, the Industrial Tribunal held that the termination of services of the petitioner was neither justified nor in order. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service with full back wages. Thereafter the petitioner filed Application No.140 of 1980 under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act) claiming back wages, bonus and Leave wages amounting to Rs.21,270.00 from December 1, 1973 to August 31, 1980, the date on which he was reinstated as per the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court, Faridabad, solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to approach the appropriate Forum under Sec.33- C (1) of the Act. Therefore the application is not maintainable under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

3. The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is debarred from making application under Sec.33-C (2) without following the procedure under Sec.33-C (1) of the Act. It is useful to refer to both the provisions :-

"33-C (1) where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to appropriate Government for recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is due it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the collector who shall proceed to recover" as arrears of land revenue.33-C (2) where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in Sub-section (1 ). "

4. A reading of the above provisions clearly shows that they are independent of each other. Sec.33-C (2) is not dependent on Sec.33-C (1 ). The remedies provided under Sec.33-C (1) and 33-C (2) are quite independent. It is no doubt true that the claims arising out of an award or settlement under Chapter V-A and V-B can be dealt with under Sub-section (1) of Sec-tion 33-C. Every claim can be entertained under Sub-section (2) of Sec.33-C. A reading of both the provisions clearly shows that scope of Sec.33-C (2) is wider than that of Sec.33-C ( 1 ). When the order of termination has been set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back wages, a right has been accrued to the petitioner to get the back wages under the award and the claim of the workman for the monetary benefits is capable of being computed and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for back wages, bonus, and leave salary will fall within Sub-section (2) of Sec.33-C. No further adjudication is required in regard to the claims made by the workman. As already stated, the scope of Sec.33-C (2) is wider than that of Sec.33c (1 ). Therefore, a petition under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act is maintainable where an individual workman or workmen claim amount of money due or amount at which