THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W.P.No.445 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 05.10.1999 made in M.P.No.69 of 1991 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur. It is the case of the petitioner that he owned a lorry bearing No. AAK 2768 and is doing business of transporting goods in the lorry within the state. The said lorry is having Andhra Permit. The petitioner engaged two cleaners and two drivers for the said lorry. Whenever the lorry was sent with load one driver and one cleaner will be accompanied with the lorry and the other cleaner and the driver will be given rest for the said period. The second respondent was engaged as cleaner for the said lorry and was paid wages as per the minimum wages prescribed from time to time by the Government. He was also paid batta of Rs.25/- per day whenever he was on duty. While so, the second respondent stopped himself from attending to duties from October, 1990 and without making any demand for wages during the period of employment, made a false claim before the Labour Court under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) claiming an amount of Rs. 68,004.14, to be due towards difference of wages, wages for over time work, wages for weekly days of rest, wages for national and festival holidays and annual leave wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings under Section 33 C (2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings. Section 33 C (2) of the Act reads as under: Recovery of money due from an employer: “Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government (within a period not exceeding three months); Provided that where the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.” It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputed claims between the parties while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33 C (2) of the Act and any claim for difference in minimum wages has to be adjudicated by the authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v GANESH RAZAK[1] wherein the Apex Court held as under: “Where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33 C (2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court’s power under Section 33 –C (2) like that of the Executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. The power of the Labour Court under Section 33 –C (2) extends to interpretation of the award or settlement on which the workman’s right rests.” From the above judgment it is clear that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and it is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof, if there is any ambiguity, the same requires interpretation which interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court’s power under Section 33 –C (2) of the Act like that of the Executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Dt. 10.12.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W.P.No.445 OF 2000 Dt. 10.12.2010 [1] (1995) 1 SCC 235