1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.1853 OF 2009 Rajesh N. Vesmakar ..Petitioner. Vs. M/s.Sterling Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. (Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.) and another ..Respondents. .... Mr. R.D. Bhat for the Petitioner. Ms Navneet Chahal i/b Mr. R.V. Paranjpe for Respondents 1 and 2. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 14th December, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner was working as an accountant with Sterling Newspapers Private Limited from 20th January, 1986 until his services came to be terminated on 16th March, 2000. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in order to seek the benefit of the Bachhavat Award and as the case may be, the Manisana Award, these being Wage Boards constituted under the Working Journalists and other Newspaper 2 Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The Labour Court dismissed the application by its order dated 31st July, 2008 holding that the application was not maintainable since the claim of the Petitioner would require an adjudication. 2. Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies where there is a pre existing right and what is sought is in the nature of computation of the benefits due and payable. According to the Petitioner his erstwhile employer Sterling Newspapers Private Limited falls into Class VI of Clause (6) of Section 2 of the Manisana (Wage Board) Award. However, after the Sterling Group was taken over by the Express Group of Newspapers in 1990 the transferee fell in category 1A of Clause (6) of Section 2. These categories or classes are determined on the basis of the gross revenue of the newspaper establishment. The question as to whether the transferee did or did not fall into a particular class at the relevant time is evidently a matter on which an adjudication would be necessitated on the basis of the evidence on record. It cannot be stated that this is merely a 3 mathematical computation, as is urged on behalf of the Petitioner. That apart, it may be necessary to note that an affidavit has been filed in these proceedings on behalf of the First Respondent in which it has been stated that on 31st March, 2008, the shareholders of the First Respondent passed a resolution for voluntary winding up. Prior thereto the High Court of Madras had on 12th January, 2007 sanctioned a scheme of demerger of the First Respondent with Siddharth Media Holding Private Limited and that as a result of the scheme all the assets and liabilities of the First Respondent stood transferred to Siddharth Media Holding Private Limited. The Petitioner, on the other hand, has contended in an affidavit dated 3rd November, 2009 that the purported resolution for winding up will have no effect on the claim which forms the subject matter of the Petition. Reliance has been sought inter alia on a letter dated 1st October, 1991 addressed by the Government Labour Officer and Inspector to the First Respondent directing it to reclassify its establishment and its employees with effect from 1st October, 1990. The material on the record is sufficient to indicate that there is indeed 4 a serious bone of contention in regard to the applicable clauses of the recommendations made by the Wage Board. The condition requisite for the applicability of the provision of Section 33-C(2) is not fulfilled inasmuch as there is no pre existing right on the basis of which it can be held that only a formal computation remained to be carried out. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the view which has been formed by the Labour Court cannot be held to be in error though for the reasons which are set out in this judgment. The Petitioner will therefore be at liberty to seek recourse to adjudication in accordance with law. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted under sub section (2) of Section 17 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, the Petitioner would have a remedy of moving the State Government. The contention of counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the issue which was raised in the application under Section 33-C(2) was only incidental to a pre existing right is therefore not correct. The Petitioner would, it is 5 needless to add, be at liberty to pursue any other remedy which is available in law for the adjudication of his claim. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. *****