IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 11.02.2026.

Natha Singh ....Appellant.

VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents.

****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA ---

Present: Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) and Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

CM-7273-LPA-2025 Exemption application is allowed, as prayed for.

CM-7274-LPA-2025 This application is for condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the appeal.

Issue notice in the application.

At the asking of the Court, Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice of the application and submits that she has no objection if the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Heard.

In view of the above, the application is allowed and delay of 92 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench dated 12.05.2025, whereby the Award of the Labour Court directing payment of Rs.1,42,000/- to the appellant along with interest thereon on account of difference of wages has been set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had an Award in his favour and the Labour Court had rightly held him entitled to difference of wages in an application preferred by him under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of

1947’).

3. Heard.

4. The appellant is stated to have been working as Work Mistry since 1978 and as he had been working continuously for five years, he was entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.1200-2100. He had filed a claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 and the Labour Court had allowed his claim and directed payment of arrears amounting to Rs.1,42,000/- along with interest. The Award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondents on the ground that the higher pay scale could be granted to only those employees who were working on semi-skilled/skilled posts, had ITI qualification and had completed five years of service whereas the appellant was working on a non-technical post. The Single Bench had set aside the Award on the ground that there was no adjudication of the claim of the appellant at any point of time and, therefore, the Labour Court could not have proceeded under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947.

5. It is trite that in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of the worker. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. The proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 are in the nature of execution and there has to be an enforceable order in that regard. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and another, (1995) 1 SCC 235. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“10. Next case on this point is Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameswar wherein the above decisions were relied on. It was held that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed under Section 33-C(2) must be “an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for”. The propositions on the question as to the scope of Section 33-C(2) deducible from the earlier decisions of this Court were summarised and they include the following, namely:

“(1) The legislative history indicates that the legislature, after providing broadly for the investigation and settlement of disputes on the basis of collective bargaining, recognised the need of individual workmen of a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights and therefore inserted Section 33-A in 1950 and Section 33-C in 1956. These two sections illustrate cases in which individual workmen c