ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 5.4.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satna in Case No. 10/15/ID Act/33/2-C by which the application filed by the respondent under section 33-C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to pay the minimum wages to the respondent from February 2012 to March 2015.

2. Writ Petition No. 17828/2015 has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satna in Case No.5/12/ID Act by which the petitioners have been directed to pay the minimum wages to the respondent from the year 2008 to January 2012.

3. Except the date of order and the period of minimum wages all other facts are common. The respondent is common and the petitioners are common as well as the questions of law involved in both the petitions are common, therefore, by this common order both the petitions shall be decided.

4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition, in short, are that the respondent filed an application under section 33-C(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, claiming that he has been paid less than Minimum Wages as well as Dearness Allowance. However, by the impugned award, the Labour Court has allowed the claim filed by the respondents and directed the petitioners to pay the difference of salary paid to the respondent and the minimum wages for the period starting from February 2012 to March 2015.

5. Challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court, it is submitted by the petitioners that the provisions of section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act are in the nature of execution and unless and until the liability is decided, no order under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act is maintainable.

6. In the present case, the respondent without getting his right/claim adjudicated under section 10 of the ID Act, directly approached the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act which is not maintainable and to buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon by the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the Case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Ors., reported in (1995) 1 SCC 235, D. Krishnan and Ors. v. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 22 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Brijpal Singh, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 58.

7. Per contra, the respondent has supported the findings given by the Labour Court. It is submitted that once it is accepted that the respondent had worked at least for 5 hours in a day, then he is entitled for the minimum wages meant for the entire day as provided under section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Thus it is clear that no adjudication was required and under these circumstances, the application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act was maintainable. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, Public Works Department and Others v. Halke, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1132, Unipack Corrugators India Private Ltd. v. Babu Lal Rajak and Another, reported in 2012 SCC OnLine MP 6329, Petcare Division of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore v. M.P. Medical and Sales Representative Association, Bhopal, reported in 2006(2) MPLJ 574.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Section 33-C of the Industrial Dispute Act read as under :--

“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 Governmen