Arvind Kumar, J.@mdashPetitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order 11.8.2003, Annexure P/1, dismissing his application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).
2. It is the case of the petitioner-workman that he was working as driver with respondent No. 2-management in their Sugar Mill. He approached
the management claiming benefits in terms of money on the basis of recommendations/report of the Wage Board as applicable to the respondent-
industry through an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. Upon notice of the said application, reply was filed by respondent No. 2. Both parties led
their respective evidence. On appreciation of evidence so put forward, the learned Labour Court vide order dated 11.8.2003 dismissed the
application of the petitioner-workman. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. On issuance of notice of the writ petition, written statement has been filed by the respondent-management. A preliminary objection has been
raised therein that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as against impugned order dated 11.8.2003 the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition in January 2005, i.e. after a period of more than 1-1/2 years. On merits, it has been submitted that
application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act was not maintainable as the basic liability was disputed since the petitioner wanted change of status from a fixed
wage employee to a graded employee under the Central Wage Board.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
A proceeding u/s 33C(2) Act is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount
of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money,
the Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money
or benefit in view of its being previously adjudged, or, otherwise, duly provided for. In other words this provision applies where there is an
enforceable existing right to receive a monetary benefit. In the instant case, the petitioner-workman is working as driver at a monthly salary of Rs.
1800/-. He wants that the recommendations of the Wage Board for Sugar Industries should be applied, entitling him a salary of Rs. 3,869/-. The
stand of the management is that the petitioner-workman is a fixed wage employee engaged for a specific period. The recommendations of the
Wages Board are not applicable to him. We are of the view that there requires a determination whether the recommendations of the Wages Board
for Sugar Industries are applicable to him or not? However, this fact cannot be determined u/s 33C(2) of the Act ibid as the petitioner-workman
has no pre-existing right. It is the subject matter to be decided in a reference u/s 10(1) of the Act and cannot be regarded as mere incidental to
computation u/s 33C(2) of the Act.
5. The application of the petitioner-workman has rightly been dismissed by the Labour Court. No interference is called for. The present writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
