THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10557 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to have worked as Sales Officer, in Guntur Regional Branch of the 2nd respondent. He filed Miscellaneous Petition No.50 of 2003, before the Labour Court, Guntur, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”), against the respondents, claiming a sum of Rs.1,66,631/-, towards arrears of commission. He claimed that in addition to the consolidated remuneration of Rs.2,000/- per month, the respondents agreed to pay commission on the sale of plots, arranged by the petitioner. He pleaded necessary facts and figures in support of his claim. The respondents opposed the application of the petitioner and questioned its maintainability. According to them, the petitioner was not at all their employee, nor did they have any control or supervision over him. He is said to be their agent to canvas and promote the business. It was alleged that though there existed an agreement for payment of certain commission, the petitioner did not reach the target. They flatly denied their liability. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Normally, an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is filed, only as a sequel to, or as device to implement; an adjudication as to the substantive rights of the workman. Instances of entertaining the application under that provision directly, are only when there is no dispute as to the basic facts. Further, it is only the arrears of salary that are claimed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the amount claimed by the petitioner is the alleged arrears of commission. The application was not preceded by any adjudication, as to the mutual rights and obligations of the petitioner and the respondents, in this regard. Commission claimed by an agent, cannot be treated as salary, and it becomes highly doubtful, as to whether the arrears thereof can be recovered, by filing an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court had examined the pleadings, as well as evidence of the parties, and found that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any amount from the respondents. This court does not find any error of jurisdiction, or factual mistake, in the order passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 10th June 2008 PAN