1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.272/2007 Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr. Date of Order :: 4.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma, the petitioner, present in person. Mr. Alkesh Aggarwal, Deputy Govt. Counsel. ... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 22.4.2006 passed by the labour court, Bikaner rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per the petitioner the respondents did not permit him to discharge the duties and that amounts to lay off and for that the employer should have paid the wages to the workman. On the other hand the stand of the employer is that no work at all was discharged by the petitioner, and therefore, he was not entitled for any honorarium. I have heard the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and also examined the order impugned. Learned labour court while rejecting the application preferred by 2 the petitioner under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act held that the entitlement of the petitioner is not settled, and therefore, no determination of the amount claimed could have been made while exercising powers under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947. The labour court also held that the issues as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not and whether the employer is an industry or not are also required to be settled. It is well settled that under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947 only the entitlement of a workman can be determined. In the instant matter the entitlement of the petitioner for the amount claimed itself is disputed and as such I do not find any error in the order impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to get his entitlement settled by availing appropriate remedy. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '