{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.599/2010 MANAGING DIRECTOR, HZL, UDAIPUR VS. I.T.-CUM-LABOUR COURT, UDAIPUR & ANR. Date of Judgment : 26.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2288/2008 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against an order dated 21.11.2008 passed by Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against an order dated 27.7.2007 passed by Labour Court, Udaipur in Case No.33/99 and in turn upheld the order of the Labour Court. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra-court appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was { 2 } justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant and in consequence justified in upholding the order of Labour Court? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we find no substance in this appeal. Facts of the case are these: 5. The proceedings out of which this appeal arises emanates from Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for short “the Act”). An application was moved by the labour union on behalf of 113 workers of the appellant – company before Labour Court, Udaipur under Section 33C(2) ibid against the appellant (employer- company). In this application, the applicant alleged that each worker who sought voluntary retirement pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter for short “V.R.Scheme”) was not paid one month wages in full. It was alleged that instead of one month pay, only wages for 13 days were paid, whereas wages for remaining 17 days was not paid. The applicant, therefore, claimed “wages of 17 days” for each worker on the strength of Clause 7.2 of the V.R.Scheme. It is this application which was allowed after contest by the Labour Court by the order dated 27.7.2007. The Labour Court held that a total sum of Rs.3,01,660/- was payable by company (appellant) to 113 workers towards their 17 days salary out of one month in terms of Clause 7.2 of V.R.Scheme. It is this order which was impugned by { 3 } appellant in writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of Labour Court giving rise to filing of this appeal by writ petitioner (employer – Company). 6. This is what the learned Single Judge held while upholding the order of labour court: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, an obligation was there upon the employer to make payment of one month advance notice pay to the workman concern and that was lacking by 17 days for every workman who is part of present dispute. The employer in its reply and even during the course of arguments, admitted that the notice pay was lack by 17 days. The labour court has awarded the workmen nothing beyond the wages for a term of 17 days, for which they were entitled under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme itself. It is well settled that the labour court while exercising powers under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947 is not empowered to adjudicate disputed questions, however, wherever the entitlement is accepted, then the Court can very well determine the amount required to be paid as per entitlement. In the instant matter, the labour court determined the { 4 } amount only to the extent of settled entitlement, as such, there is no error in the order impugned dated 27.07.2007. No interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, is warranted.” 7. We concur with the view taken by Single Judge. In the first place, the claim made by union of workers was based on their pre-existing right based on Clause 7.2 of the V.R.Scheme. Secondly, it was not denied by employer (appellant) at any point of time. Thirdly, even non-payment of 17 days wages was not disputed by the employer. Fourthly, the proceedings before the Labour Court did not involve any adjudication of rights nor it involved any issues relating to facts. The Labour Court was only required to examine quantification of wages payable to each worker for 17 days and this could be determined by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) ibid. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision reported in 2003(11) SCC – 572 contended that the employees accepted the retirement in full and final satisfaction of their claim and hence they were not entitled to claim any amount over and above paid to them. According to the learned counsel, the right to claim was given up by employee. We find no substance in this submission. 9. The right to claim the wages in question emanated from the V.R. Scheme itself. In this view of the matter, such { 5 } claim was very much alive so far as employee was concerned as it remained unpaid. If the employer (appellant herein) failed to give full effect to the V.R. Scheme in favour of employee, then the aggrieved employee was well within his legal right to file a claim for enforcement of his right which remained unsatisfied. Since the claim in question was a monetary one and hence, it could have been entertained by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) ibid for its quantification. The decision thus relied on by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on these facts. 9. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/