IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6430 of 2000 THE RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY & Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05. 19.01.2009 Herd learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court can not be sustained on a simple proposition of law that such a proceeding was sought to be initiated, deliberated and answered strictly in terms of Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act which presupposes existence of an earlier adjudication. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent workmen however admits that there was no earlier adjudication and in fact the issue as with regard to entitlement of salary was never gone into so that the same could have been executed in terms of Section 33C (2) of the Act. That being so, counsel for the petitioner is absolutely correct in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Ganesh Razak and another reported in 1995(1) S.C 235 wherein law in this regard has been laid down in the following words. “………where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier - 2 - adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labor Court’s power under Section 33-C (2) like that of the Executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. The power of the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) extends to interpretation of the award or settlement on which the workman’s right rests……..” Counsel for the workmen however submits that even if the award given by the Labour Court was unsustainable, the grievance of the workmen is justified and therefore quashing of the order of the Labour Court could not be taken as a license to the university to deny the legitimate demand of the respondent workmen. This Court appreciates concern of the workmen who was somehow wrongly advised to seek remedy of the Labour Court and therefore while allowing this application and quashing the order of the Labour Court, this Court - 3 - would give liberty to the respondent workmen to take appropriate steps for payment of his salary as in permissible in law. With the aforesaid observations, this application is allowed. Shageer (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)