THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2032 OF 2004 DATED 13TH NOVEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN Thota Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner and The Hon’ble Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2032 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner, a former salesman in Vijaya Saradhi Traders, Tenali, Guntur District, the second respondent, challenges the order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in M.P.No.116 of 1996 filed by him. He seeks a consequential direction to the second respondent to pay him the benefits claimed in the said M.P. along with interest. The petitioner filed M.P.No.116 of 1996 under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) wherein he claimed leave wages, one month notice pay, retrenchment compensation, differential wages, overtime wages, provident fund, bonus, weekly holidays, etc. with interest at 18 per cent per annum. The second respondent filed its counter before the Labour Court denying the averments made by the petitioner in his application. It was denied that he ever worked on holidays and Sundays. Several allegations of misconduct were levelled against the petitioner. It was also denied that he ever rendered any overtime service. The second respondent asserted that the petitioner was paid wages in accordance with law and that he was not entitled to any further amounts as claimed by him. The Labour Court, having considered the matter on merits, was aware that the scope of its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 was very limited. The Labour Court took into account the case law cited by the second respondent with regard to the scope of its jurisdiction under the said provision but opined on merits that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and dismissed the application. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Labour Court misdirected itself in the consideration of the petitioner’s claims and in dismissing the application without proper appreciation of the issues raised by the petitioner. It is however to be noted that the contention urged by the second respondent before the Labour Court was a substantial one and the petitioner necessarily has to get over the same before addressing this Court on the merits of the various claims raised by him. The scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 is limited. Only quantification of the admitted monetary benefit claimed by a workman can be decided by the Labour Court in exercise of such jurisdiction. When the very entitlement of the workman is subjected to challenge, the Labour Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 and decide the matter. Reference may be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in H.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. RANJEET SINGH[1] in this regard. In the present case, the very entitlement of the petitioner to the claims raised by him was in issue, as the second respondent had filed its counter denying the averments made by the petitioner in support of his claims. It is relevant to note that the claims put forth by the petitioner also included claims for retrenchment compensation and bonus. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court could not have decided the entitlement of the petitioner to such claims. The application filed by the petitioner under the said provision was therefore not maintainable in its very inception. I therefore see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court in M.P.No.116 of 1996, though for reasons other than those recorded by the Labour Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 13th November, 2009. VGSR [1] (2008) 4 SCC 241