THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22533 of 1999 ORDER: Respondent No.1 worked as an employee in the petitioner organization. He approached the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad by filing Miscellaneous Petition No.12 of 1998 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). He pleaded that he was required by the petitioner to work on public holidays with a promise that he would be paid the corresponding wages and though he worked on public holidays, he was not paid the wages. The petitioner opposed the application stating that whenever an employee was required to work on a public holiday, he was permitted to avail holiday on a working day and the circular has provided for lapse of such compensatory holiday, if it is not claimed within a stipulated time. The claim of the petitioner was denied. Through its award, dated 28.01.1999, the Labour Court held that respondent No.1 is entitled to be paid compensatory wages and determined the same at Rs.15,979/-. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Miscellaneous Petition filed by respondent No.1 was not maintainable in law. He contends that there did not exist any prior determination of the claim, and the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was untenable. He submits that the plea raised by the petitioner as to the manner in which the services of the employees were engaged on public holidays was not dealt with by the Labour Court at all. He places reliance upon certain precedents. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that there is no denial of existence of such a scheme in the petitioner organization and that respondent No.1 has worked on public holidays. He submits that when the wages are claimed for the work done on certain holidays, hardly any determination or adjudication is needed and the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is very much maintainable. Respondent No.1 claimed wages on the ground that he worked on public holidays. Though it was mentioned that such a facility or scheme existed, he did not substantiate the same by adducing cogent evidence. Be that as it may, an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act could have been maintained if only there was a prior adjudication in the claim. An application filed under that provision is almost in the form of an execution petition. In A.P.S.E.B Hyderabad Vs. Ikram Ahmed[1], a Full Bench of this Court held that there must be an existing right in an employee vested either under a settlement or award or under the provisions of any law before an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is filed by him. Similarly in A.P.S.C.C. Limited Vs. Labour Court, Hyderabad[2] also, a Division Bench of this Court held that an enquiry into the existence of right of an individual to receive the benefit must precede an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. In the recent past, this Court dealt with this very issue elaborately in H.Rama Murthy Vs. K.R.D. Technologies Limited, Hyderabad[3] and held that the application under that provision is in the form of an E.P., and it must be preceded by a determination. In view of the legal position indicated above, the Miscellaneous Petition submitted by respondent No.1 cannot be maintained. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the Labour Court and that respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw half of the deposited amount. Respondent No.1 has since retired from service. This Court is not inclined to direct recovery of amount from him. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The balance of the amount, if any, in deposit with the Labour Court, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.07.2010 kdl [1] 1979 LAB. I. C. 915 [2] 1998 (3) SUPL 858 [3] 2009 (2) ALD 39