The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and the entitlement of a workman to monitory benefits under previous awards.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, for State Bank of India.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 21.01.2016, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The petitioner was appointed as Godown Watchman on a temporary post on 18.12.1970, in State Bank of India. His services were terminated on 05.05.1973. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudicating the dispute relating to termination of the service of the petitioner. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, by award dated 10.05.1985 (published on 30.05.1985), held that termination of the service of the petitioner is not justified. The termination being void ab-initio, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages. This award was challenged in Writ C No. 14627 of 1985, which was dismissed by order dated 02.11.1995. Thereafter, Chief Manager issued an appointment letter to the petitioner on 22.04.1996, appointing him on the post of Watchman. Chief Manager issued another letter dated 24.08.1996, stating that the petitioner was reinstated in service in pay-scale of Rs. 1600-3020/- but reinstatement was not upon any vacant post. The petitioner moved an application dated 05.11.1996, claiming bonus and medical reimbursement w.e.f. 05.05.1973, which was rejected by Chief Manager by his letter dated 04.12.1996. Chief Manager issued another letter dated 03.07.1997, appointing the petitioner on the post of Watchman/Co-messenger/Co-cash coolly, for 6 months probation. Thereafter, he confirmed the petitioner by order dated 05.03.1998, w.e.f. 15.01.1998. The petitioner moved Civil Contempt Application before this Court, on the allegation that fresh appointment letter dated 03.07.1997, amounts to contempt as the Tribunal has directed for his reinstatement in service. The contempt application was disposed of by order dated 02.09.2001, with observation that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Act to execute his award.

4. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 33-C(1) of the Act before Regional Labour Commissioner, claiming monitory benefits under the award dated 10.05.1985. The application of the petitioner was rejected by Regional Labour Commissioner by order dated 27.09.2005. Then the petitioner moved another application Section 33-C(1) of the Act before Regional Labour Commissioner, which was rejected by order dated 05.01.2006, on the ground that the award was fully satisfied. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Writ-C No. 13844 of 2007, which was allowed and the matter was remanded by order dated 14.03.2007. After remand, the petitioner filed an application on 09.04.2007, giving details of his claim. Regional Labour Commissioner by his order dated 30.10.2007, held that the application under Section 33-C(1) of the Act was not maintainable. The petitioner filed Writ C No. 56656 of 2007, against aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order of this Court dated 20.03.2009, leaving it open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act or make a reference under Section 10 of the Act or Section 4-K of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, on 12.04.2009, before the Tribunal which was rejected by the impugned order dated 21.01.2016 on the ground that in the application interpretation of award of the Tribunal was required, which cannot be done. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Some relevant provisions of the Act are quoted below:-

Section 2 (rr) "wages" means all remuneration capable of bei