JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) -

By this common order, the above-said petitions are disposed of as issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-36923-2019.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-3) whereby Labour Court in exercise of power conferred by Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') has assessed its liability.

3. A labour dispute erupted between the parties. The petitioner retrenched 26 workmen on 16.12.1972. They served demand notice and matter reached to Labour Court which vide award dated 20.04.1975 ordered to reinstate them with continuity of service. The petitioner preferred CWP No.3106 of 1982 before this Court assailing aforesaid award which was dismissed. The petitioner unsuccessfully approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner did not reinstate the workers and they filed CWP No.5079 of 1994 before this Court which was allowed vide order dated 04.09.2009. They preferred Contempt Petition No. 634 of 2011 and this Court directed the petitioner to comply with order dated 04.09.2009. The petitioner as per its calculation complied with the order of this Court and made payment to workers. Feeling dissatisfied with the calculation made by the petitioner, the workmen approached Labour Court in terms of Section 33C(2) of ID Act. The workman claimed that he is entitled to back wages to the tune of Rs.29,92,977/- as per high Court's order dated 04.09.2009 whereas employer has made payment of Rs.5,66,508/-. The Labour Court vide impugned order dated 20.02.2019 allowed application of the workman and directed the management to make payment of Rs.6,65,067/- over and above already made payment.

4. Mr. Chanderdeep Singh, Advocate submits that the Labour Court in exercise of power under Section 33C(2) of ID Act while acting as Executing Court could not travel beyond the order of this Court. This Court while disposing of writ petition has directed the management to pay wages till the date of retirement. There was no direction to upgrade status of workers and thereafter calculate their wages. The scope of Section 33C(2) of ID Act is very limited. The Labour Court has relied upon notifications issued by Labour Department and Supreme Court in Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. & Others Versus State of Haryana, 2019 AIR (SC) 2194 has set aside notification dated 27.06.2007 whereby workers were ordered to be upgraded.

5. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the management was liable to pay minimum wages as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short '1948 Act'), thus, the Labour Court has rightly calculated liability of the petitioner.

6. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the pleadings and arguments of both sides, it is evident that dispute hangs around the scope and ambit of Section 33C(2) of ID Act. For the ready reference Section 33C is reproduced as below:

"33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-

(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 or Chapter V-B, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:

Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer:

Provided furth