[1] IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.698 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2828 OF 2005 Jaiprakash Udaybeer Singh .... Appellant Vs. Development Corporation of Konkan Limited .... Respondent Shri Susheel Mahadeshwar a/w Ms Ranjana Todankar for the Appellant. Ms Lata Desai a/w Ms Pallavi Divekar for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: JUNE 02, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. Heard. The appellant challenges the order dated 22-8-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.2828 of 2005 by the learned single Judge whereby the petition filed by the respondent against the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been allowed and the order of the Labour Court has been set aside. 2. The learned single Judge, relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of The Bombay Gas The Bombay Gas The Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva & Ors. Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva & Ors. Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva & Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 752, Chief Mining Engineer, M/s. East India Chief Mining Engineer, M/s. East India Chief Mining Engineer, M/s. East India [2] Coal Co. Ltd v. Rameshwar & Ors., Coal Co. Ltd v. Rameshwar & Ors., Coal Co. Ltd v. Rameshwar & Ors., reported in AIR 1968 SC 218, M/s. Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh M/s. Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh M/s. Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Chand Chand, reported in AIR 1978 SC 995, P.K. Singh v. P.O. P.K. Singh v. P.O. P.K. Singh v. P.O. & Ors., & Ors., & Ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 1618, Chief Chief Chief Superintendent, Government Live Stock, Hissar v. Ramesh Superintendent, Government Live Stock, Hissar v. Ramesh Superintendent, Government Live Stock, Hissar v. Ramesh Kumar Kumar Kumar, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 363, State Bank of State Bank of State Bank of India v. Rane Chandra Dubey India v. Rane Chandra Dubey India v. Rane Chandra Dubey, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 73, State of Rajasthan v. Mool Singh & Anr. State of Rajasthan v. Mool Singh & Anr. State of Rajasthan v. Mool Singh & Anr., reported in 1999 LAB IC 215 and R.P.G. Cables v. R.A. Sujan R.P.G. Cables v. R.A. Sujan R.P.G. Cables v. R.A. Sujan, reported in 2002 (94) FLR 548, has held that the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act are analogous to the execution proceedings and the Labour Court in those proceedings has merely to compute the entitlement in terms of the money, based upon proper adjudication by the Competent Court or authority. In case of any dispute about the entitlement for the benefit, such an issue cannot be adjudicated upon in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. Indeed, the law on this point is well-settled and we do not find any case for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. In fact, the Labour Court by allowing the application under Section 33-C(2) in the case in hand had exceeded its jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, there was a dispute between the parties as to in which category the petitioner would fall, whether in the third category or the fourth category. The Labour Court, therefore, could not have dealt with the [3] said issue in such proceedings and hence the learned single Judge was justified in interfering in the order passed by the Labour Court. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramakrishna Ramnath v. The State Ramakrishna Ramnath v. The State Ramakrishna Ramnath v. The State of Maharashtra and others of Maharashtra and others of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1975 LAB IC 1561 and of the Apex Court in the matter of P.K. Singh and P.K. Singh and P.K. Singh and others v. Presiding Officer and others others v. Presiding Officer and others others v. Presiding Officer and others, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 457. In Ramakrishna Ramnath’s Ramakrishna Ramnath’s Ramakrishna Ramnath’s case (supra), the Division Bench was dealing with the matter wherein the management had denied the status to the applicant as a workman and in that regard certain observations were made. In that case the decision was delivered as long back as in 1974 and in various judgments passed subsequent thereto, the Apex Court in clear terms has held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) is confined to the execution of the order passed by the Court or the competent authorities pronouncing about the entitlement of the benefit to the claimant. In P.K. Singh’s P.K. Singh’s P.K. Singh’s case (supra), attention has been drawn to para 7 of the said decision. In fact, the observations therein, rather than assisting the appellant, clearly justifies the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Apex Court therein has clearly held that whenever there is a dispute regarding [4] classification of the employee in a particular category, then such a dispute cannot be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court in exercise of power under Section 33-C(2). As already observed above, there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the appellant falls in the third category or the fourth category and it was only after adjudication of the said dispute, the appellant’s entitlement can be decided. In that regard, nothing prevents the appellant from seeking reference regarding his claim for the entitlement. Being so, we do not find any case being made out for interference in the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, is summarily rejected. (P.B.Majmudar, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/J8a698.7 sjs/J8a698.7 sjs/J8a698.7