Mr. P.B. Bajanthri, J.: - In the instant writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala (Annexure P/1).

2. Rama Shankar Tiwari – respondent no.2 was appointed as a Security Guard in the Haryana Engineering College (for short ‘College’) on 29.04.2000. On 09.01.2002, he had abandoned the service and it was settled by means of a compromise before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 22.04.2002. Thus, respondent no.2 reported back to service on 23.04.2002. Once again, on 08.05.2002, he had abandoned the service. Therefore, in the year 2003, he raised an industrial dispute reference No. 46 of 2003 and the same was decided by the Labour Court on 28.07.2005, while setting aside order dated 08.05.2002, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman in service along with all other benefits including continuity of service and full back wages. This is an ex-parte award. The petitioner aggrieved by the award dated 28.07.2005 preferred a civil writ petition No. 1010 of 2006 before this Court. During the pendency of said writ petition, respondent no.2 was reinstated and he had reported the duty on 25.05.2006. In the meanwhile, wages were calculated and paid. On 10.01.2008, writ petition filed by the petitioner got dismissed. Further, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 10958 of 2008 and suffered an order before the Supreme Court. Respondent No.2 had also filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’) relating to payment of dues from 08.01.2002 to 24.05.2006 seeking benefits like Provident Fund, Leave Encashment, Bonus, etc. to the tune of Rs.3,06,737/-. On 15.12.2007, an ex-parte award was passed. The petitioner granted the monetary benefits along with interest to the tune of Rs.3,34,343/- on 02.09.2009.

3. In this background, respondent no.2 filed one more application under Section 33C(2) of the Act in the month of November, 2009 claiming the relief of salary for the period from 25.05.2006 to 31.10.2009 to the tune of Rs. 2,96,351-54.

4. Before the Labour Court the petitioner has submitted written statement. In the written statement, the petitioner has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court issued an award in favour of respondent-workman on 04.10.2011. The petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court vide Annexure P/1, filed present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Section 33C(2) of the Act filed by respondent no.2 is not maintainable. It was contended that grievance of the respondent-workman is relating to payment of salary for the period from 25.05.2006 to 31.10.2009. Since the respondent joined the service on 25.05.2006 and abandoned the service, therefore, he is not entitled for the claim made by him before the Labour Court. No right is existing in favour of the respondent as he is not in service so as to claim salary for the period from 25.05.2006 to 31.10.2009. It was further contended that Labour Court did not appreciate the maintainability of the application filed by the respondent-workman when he abandoned the service without challenging to the termination order. It was further contended that Labour Court erred in accepting the calculations made by the respondent-workman in so far as the salary is concerned. The petitioner - College is not paying leave encashment any of its employees, therefore, question of extending benefit of leave encashment is also impermissible. The Labour Court proceeded to pass orders as if respondentworkman has questioned the validity of the termination order so as to hold that termination is illegal and further Labour Court proceeded to consider the application of the respondent as if it was under Section 33C(1) of the Act, ignoring the fact that respondent’s applica