IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.299 of 2009 1. PREM KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI DASRATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BABURA, P.S. BADAHARA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH) 2. BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD SON OF SRI AYODHAYA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOELAWAR, P.S. KOELAWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH) ………………………………APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATNA. 5. THE DIRECTOR REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, ARRAH, BHOJPUR (ARRAH) 7. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI NAHAR ANCHAL PIRO-2, P.S. PIRO, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH) 8. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI NAHAR ANCHAL GARHANI, P.O. GARHANI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ( ARRAH) ---- RESPONDENTS. --------- 2/ 30-03-2009 This is the case of the petitioners-appellants that they, along with three other persons, were dismissed from service, out of them three persons raised Industrial disputes under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to the Labour Cour, Patna. After hearing both parties, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna while setting aside the termination order, quashed the order dated 24.11.1989 and directed the respondents to re-instate the service of those three persons. The respondents challenged the Award by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9029 of 1992. A Division Bench of this Court by Annexure-7 to the writ petition, dismissed the said writ petition and directed the respondents to implement the aforesaid Award. In view of the aforesaid order, the aforesaid three persons were joined their services and also got all the dues. It is the case of the appellants that they did not challenge their - 2 - termination order by raising the Industrial Dispute under the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and they did not seek reference under section 10 of the Act. The other three persons had sought reference under section 10 of the Act and upon making such reference an Award was granted in their favour.But they straight away approached the Labour Court compensating back wages under the provision of section 33( c ) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The above application was dismissed by Labour Court as petitioners termination order was not set aside as illegal such order calling decision as an order under section 33( c ) ( 2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition opined that the view taken by Labour Court does not suffer from any error. Learned Single Judge has observed that the scope of section 33©(2) of the Act is very limited and in fact is akin to an execution proceeding. In the case of the appellants there being no earlier determination as with regard to claim of payment of salary the remedy sought before the Labour Court under section 33© (2) of the Act by the appellants was itself wholly misconceived. In our view the impugned order requires no interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( J. B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J ) BTiwary/