IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NO. 20609 OF 2008 Between: K.M. Mohan Rao …..Petitioner And Sri P. Raghava Reddy, Vice Chancellor, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad & Two others. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The unsuccessful petitioner in M.P.No.58 of 2003 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur assails the order dated 5.9.2007, passed therein dismissing his application filed under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioner, a Helper in the Nidadavolu Consumers Cooperative Central Stores, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District, was terminated from service in the year 1993. He raised an industrial dispute in this regard in I.D.No.261 of 1993 before the Labour Court, Guntur. By Award dated 28.9.2000, the Labour Court, Guntur set aside the petitioner’s termination from service and directed the society to reinstate him in service with continuity of service along with back wages. As he was not paid back wages pursuant to the aforestated Award, the petitioner filed the subject application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act claiming a sum of Rs.1,84,328/- towards the Pay and Dearness Allowance due to him as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the relevant Government orders. By the impugned order dated 5.9.2007, the Labour Court dismissed the said petition holding that it was not maintainable as the petitioner did not have an existing right to claim the amounts. Perusal of the order under challenge reflects that the Labour Court was influenced by the fact that the petitioner, in the body of his application filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, sought payment of bonus, encashment of annual leave and medical leave and other statutory benefits. It is however to be noticed that the computation table annexed to the said petition only detailed the Pay and Dearness Allowance claimed by the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,84,328/-. Losing sight of this aspect, the Labour Court proceeded on the ground that the petitioner was seeking payment of attendant benefits and applied the law laid down in APSRTC Vs. G.S.NARSAGOUD[1]. The Labour Court opined that the petitioner would first have to assert and establish his entitlement to the amounts claimed and could not straightaway maintain a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. This approach on the part of the Labour Court is patently erroneous as it failed to notice that the petitioner was entitled to back wages for the period that he was kept out of service, pursuant to the Award dated 28.9.2000 in I.D.No.261 of 1993. If the petitioner sought any amounts in excess of those to which he was entitled under the said Award, the Labour Court was within its right to exclude such claims. However, the Labour Court was incorrect in rejecting the petition in its entirety losing sight of the fact that the petitioner was entitled to quantification of back wages to which he had a right as per the Award in I.D.No.261 of 1993. Reference in this regard may be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S.Rajagopalan[2]. “Besides, there can be no doubt that when the Labour Court is given the power to allow an individual workman to execute or implement his existing individual rights, it is virtually exercising execution powers in some cases, and it is well settled that it is open to the Executing Court to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution. It is, of course, true that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree, nor can it add to or subtract from the provision of the decree. These limitations apply also to the Labour Court; but like the executing Court, the Labour Court would also be competent to interpret the award or settlement on which a workman bases his claim under S.33C(2). Therefore, we feel no difficulty in holding that for the purpose of making the necessary determination under S. 33C(2), it would, in appropriate cases, be open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workman’s right rests”. The same view was affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in Mandegam Radhakrishna Reddy Vs. Sri Bharathi Velu Bus Service and another[3]. The order dated 5.9.2007 passed by the Labour Court in M.P.No.58 of 2003 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the said Court for consideration afresh in terms of and in the light of the Award dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.261 of 1993. The Labour Court would necessarily have to decide the quantum of back wages payable to the petitioner pursuant to the said Award leaving out the claims put forth by the petitioner which do not flow from the said Award. As the matter has been kept pending for a sufficiently long period of time, it is in the interest of the parties that the matter be given a quietus expeditiously. The Labour Court is therefore directed to give priority to this case and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Dt: 20.01.2011 Issue C.C. in ten days. Tjmr/Md THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NO. 20609 OF 2008 DATE: 20.01.2011 [1] 2003 I-LLJ Page-816 [2] AIR 1964 SC 743 [3] 1986 LAB.I.C.80