SBCWP NO.3696/97. SBCWP NO.3041/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3696/1997. Executive Engineer, Bisalpur Project Ajmer & Anr. Versus Satya Narayan & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3041/1997. State of Rajasthan Versus Gopal Lal & Anr. Date of Order:- February 11, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Chetan Bairwa, Additional Government Counsel. (in SBCWP No.3696/97). Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. (in SBCWP No.3041/97). Shri Darshan Shree for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:- These two writ petitions are directed against the different orders passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal by which, applications filed by the respondent-workmen under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed. SBCWP NO.3696/97. SBCWP NO.3041/97. 2 2) In SBCWP No.3696/1997, application filed by respondent workman Satya Narayan was allowed vide order dated 12/9/1997 with direction to petitioners State to pay to him a sum of Rs.50438/- which the labour court computed as his entitlement for being declared semi permanent w.e.f. 1/7/1990 instead of 1/1/1995 when he was actually declared semi permanent by the petitioner. 3) In SBCWP No.3041/1997, labour court awarded a sum of Rs.38934/- to the respondent workman Gopal Lal together with interest. In that case, he was declared semi permanent by the petitioner State w.e.f. 1/11/1991. Labour Court however held that he was entitled to be conferred semi permanent status w.e.f. 1/4/1986 and accordingly directed that for the intervening period he shall be paid said amount. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that labour court now in the scope of Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947, which is in the form of executive proceedings, has first determined eligibility of the petitioner to be declared as semi permanent from much earlier date and than direct payment of wages/difference of wages for such period. Learned counsel SBCWP NO.3696/97. SBCWP NO.3041/97. 3 submitted that labour court acceded to his jurisdiction available to it under Section 33C (2). Learned counsel in support of their argument relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razzak : 1995(1) LLN 402 to argue that labour court while dealing with the application under Section 33C(2) could not adjudicate the dispute related to entitlement of the workman of wages and that such power can be exercised only when entitlement can be duly adjudicated upon earlier or recognized by the employer. 5) Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the labour court in the present case on the strength of the previous judgments of this court, found that respondents workmen should have been declared semi permanent from much earlier date. Order passed by the labour court on the application under Section 33C(2) is perfectly legal and valid and it is not open to interference. Learned counsel submitted that labour court relied on judgment of this court in RLR 1994(1) p.716 and RLR 1994(1) 739 and argued that there is no reason not to grant semi permanent status to the respondent workman SBCWP NO.3696/97. SBCWP NO.3041/97. 4 immediately upon completion of two years in terms of Rule 3 of the Work Charge Service Rules. 6) Learned counsel for petitioners rejoined and submitted that the award of semi permanent status not only can be granted on satisfactory service of the respondent but also on availability of post as also on verification of the fact that workman continuously worked for two years in two consecutive year only then, he should be declared semi permanent. It cannot be therefore treated as automatic entitlement as observed by the labour court. 7) I find that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and another : 1995(1) LLN 402, in which, Supreme Court held that power available to labour court under Section 33C(2) is similar to that of executing court. Without proper adjudication of disputed claim of the workman, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages claimed by them on that basis was not maintainable under Section 33C(2). Supreme Court in this case held that claim of the respondent workman if not based on proper adjudication, it SBCWP NO.3696/97. SBCWP NO.3041/97. 5 could not be granted if entitlement the labour court has decided the same. 8) In the result, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned-orders dated 11/2/1997 and 17/8/1996 are set-aside. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil