IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.65 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7342 OF 2008 Nandkumar Motiram Chitte ... Appellant Versus Shree Saptashrung Niwasini Devi Trust Sevakanchi Pat Sanstha Ltd. and another. ... Respondents Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the appellant. Mr.S.S. Pakale for the respondents. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 29TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 1st December, 2008 thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondents herein. 2. The appellant has initially filed complaint ULP No.17/2004 claiming that the appellant was entitled to the benefits as per the resolution of the respondent dated 16th September, 1998. The said complaint was allowed, vide order dated 9th September, 2004. Subsequently, an application came to be filed by the present appellant being Application (IDA) No.13/2005, under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, thereby claiming that he was entitled to the benefits of wages as per 5th Pay Commission. The said complaint was allowed by the learned Industrial Court, vide order dated 29th July, 2008. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred the petition and the same was allowed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since the earlier complaint of the appellant was allowed, wherein it was held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit as per the resolution dated 16th September, 1998 and as per the said resolution, appellant was entitled to the benefit of wages under 5th Pay Commission, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the petition filed by the respondents. 4. A perusal of the resolution dated 16th September, 1998 would reveal that it does not refer to benefit under 5th Pay Commission. The learned counsel strongly relied on the letter dated 26th April, 2003 wherein reference is made that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of wages as per the 5th Pay Commission. However issuance of the said letter is seriously disputed by respondents. The scope of provisions of section 33-C(2) is very limited. Unless the claim of the employee is either admitted or pre-determined, the learned Industrial Court under section 33-C(2), cannot entertain the matter. In any case, when there is a dispute regarding the entitlement of the employee, such a question cannot be gone into under section 33-C(2) of the Act. 5. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has rightly found that in the resolution dated 16th September, 1998, there was no reference regarding entitlement of the appellant for the wages as per 5th Pay Commissioner. In so far as letter dated 26th April, 2003 is concerned, the said letter is seriously disputed. In view of that, the question as to whether the benefits of wages as per 5th Pay Commission were available or not is beyond the scope of section 33-C(2) of the Act. As such, we do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, J.