1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.478/2009 HK Pardasani Vs. Chairman-cum Managing Director, Kadila Health Care Ltd., & Ors. Date of Order dated 9.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.HK Pardasani, petitioner present in person. Mr.JP Joshi, for the respondents. <><><> Heard petitioner present in person and learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner's application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) was dismissed by the labour court by order dated 12th Nov., 2008 holding it that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's application straightway filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 is not maintainable because the claim of the petitioner has not been adjudicated nor it is admitted claim of the petitioner so that straight way the petitioner can seek execution and in fact, looking to the facts of the case,the petitioner is advised to avail the remedy under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 where his claim can be adjudicated so as to have a executable order under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947. The petitioner himself appeared and requested for deciding this writ petition though it was tagged with another writ petition no.381/2008 on the ground that in another writ 2 petition reference has been sent to the labour court, but copy of the application filed today by the learned counsel for the respondent has been given today, therefore, he be permitted to study afresh for writ petition no.381/2008 and this writ petition may be decided. The petitioner relied upon two judgments, one delivered in the case of NBC Corporation Vs. Pritam Singh reported in AIR 1972 SC 1579 wherein dispute was whether a dismissed workman can approach the labour court under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that he can seek remedy in the labour court for the salary and dues of his service period. The petitioner also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur & Anr reporte din 2001 (90) FLR 257. In Dolphin Laboratories' case the dispute was whether the medical representative is a workman or not and in that case also there was admitted facts about the entitlement of the claim of the petitioner provided he be treated to be workman so as to give the jurisdiction to the labour court to pass appropriate order and, therefore, the Division Bench observed that the employer himself admitted entitlement of the wages of the said medical representative which required no quantification of the amount and, therefore, the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the labour court. Here in this case, according to the 3 petitioner himself he is claiming salary of 3 months i.e., July, 2007 to 10th Oct., 2007 and according to him said claim of the petitioner has been disputed by the respondent by clearly stating that petitioner is not entitled to that amount for the reasons mentioned in the reply. It is settled law that proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 are the execution proceedings where the party can seek enforcement of any order or award,but cannot seek determination of the liability of the non-applicant and proper way to get it adjudicated is by way of reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. The above two judgments referred above have no application to the facts of the case and the execution proceedings cannot be converted to be a proceedings for adjudication of the claim. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the labour court dated 12th Nov., 2008. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-