JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the award dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Labour Court, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-9 wherein, the benefit of salary for the period from 01.09.2016 to 02.1.2018 has been extended in favour of the respondent No.1-Workman in an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 qua the award 31.08.2016, wherein the benefit of reinstatement along with 50% of the back-wages had been awarded to the respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the benefit of wages for the period after award dated 31.08.2016 was passed till the date when respondent No.1 was allowed to join in the service, and that too under an application filed under Section 33-C(2) as, only the benefit granted under an award or settlement can be executed under Section 33-C(2) and further, no benefit for which an adjudication is required to be done, can be given on an application filed under Section 33-C(2) hence, the award dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) is bad.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Workman in support of the award dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) submits that once, an award was passed on 31.08.2016, wherein the benefit of reinstatement along with 50% of the back-wages was granted to respondent No.1-Workman, the petitioner-Department was under an obligation to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service, which was not done hence, an application was filed under Section 33-C(2) for computation of the wages for the period passing of the after the award till the time she was reinstated on the ground of non-reinstatement of the respondent No.1-Workman in service by the respondent, which is causing prejudice to the respondent No.1-Workman, as she was entitled for the benefit of reinstatement as well as the wages she would have earned for the said period, if she had been reinstated as per the directions of the award dated 31.08.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Workman submits that when the aforementioned application was filed, the respondent No.1-Workman was reinstated in service and even 50% of the back-wages for which she was entitled under the award dated 31.08.2016 was paid.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

6. The conceded position is that the award dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) has been passed on an application filed by the respondent No.1-Workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ('1947 Act'). The said Section 33-C(2) is as under:-

"XXX.

Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government.(within a period not exceeding three months) '

7. A bare perusal of the above would show that the application under Section 33-C(2) can only be filed for implementation of the award or the settlement, i.e., whenever there is a pre-existing right the same can be executed but a fresh claim for adjudication of rights cannot be done under Section 33 of the 1947 Act.

8. In the present case, the respondent No.1-Workman under the award dated 31.08.2016 was entitled for the benefit of reinstatement and continuity of service along with 50% of the back-wages upto the date of award. Concededly, the same has already been given to the respondent No.1-Workman.

9. A bare perusal of the above would show that in Paragraph No.11 and 12, following relief has been granted to the respondent No.1-Workman:-

'11. Resultantly, it is held that the applicant is entitled to get full wa