JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3.

2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1st), U.P. Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 08/2018 (Chandrabhal Mishra vs. U.P.S.I.D.C.) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') has been rejected.

3. The records of the case indicate that an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was filed by the petitioner claiming that he was entitled to promotion on a higher post from the date on which his juniors had been promoted and further claiming computation of the difference of wages in respect of the promotional post. A chart had also been appended along with the application in respect of the claim for difference of wages which would have been admissible had he been granted promotion to the higher post.

4. The aforementioned claim had been sought to be put forth by the petitioner on the basis of an earlier judgment of this Court dated 9.11.2004 passed in Special Appeal No. 1463 of 2004 (Chandra Bhal Mishra Vs. Principal Secretary Industries, Government of U.P. and others) which had been allowed in the following terms :-

"We, therefore, quash the order dated 07.07.1099 by which the resignation letter is said to have been accepted. The petitioner-appellant shall be treated to be in continuous service and shall be entitled to all the benefits as he had been continuous service but he shall not claim any salary for the period he remained out of service. The respondent Corporation shall reinstate the petitioner -appellant forthwith."

5. The Labour Court in the order dated 15.4.2019 which is sought to be challenged in the present petition has duly recorded a finding that it was the admitted case of the petitioner that in compliance of the aforementioned judgment dated 9.11.2004 the petitioner had been taken in service by his employers vide order dated 16.12.2004 and he had been paid the admissible salary and allowances against the post on which he had been working.

6. The Labour Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondent-employer was a State Government Undertaking where promotions were made under certain specified norms as per the relevant rules. The Labour Court upon taking note of the fact that the claim sought to be raised by the petitioner was for computation of an amount which would be admissible to the petitioner upon his being granted promotion to a higher post, has held that the said claim would not be maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act in view of the fact that the petitioner having not been promoted to the higher post there was no existing right to raise a claim for computation of the amount which would become due to him upon his being granted the promotional post. It has also recorded that the adjudication of the claim raised by the petitioner could be made only upon a valid reference under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and adjudication of the same by a competent court, and only thereafter the petitioner could seek computation of the amount. The application filed under Section 33-C(2) has accordingly been rejected.

7. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he was entitled to promotion from the date on which his juniors had been promoted and was also entitled to claim computation of the amount which would become due to him upon being granted the promotional post.

8. Per contra, Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that in terms of the order dated 9.11.2004 passed by this Court, the petitioner had been taken back in service and was granted all the benefits which he was entitled to in respect of the post on which he had been working by treating him to be in continuous service. It was submitted that the aforementione