IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8772 of 2009 Between: A. Raheem, S/o. Peer Mohammad, R/o. 6-43/17, Islampura, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Labour Court, Hyderabad-III, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 4th Floor, M.J. Road, Hyderabad - 1. 2 Depot Manager, APSRTC., Nizamabad - I Depot, Nizambad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8772 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.06.2008 in M.P.No.28 of 2004 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad-III, respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner retired as helper of respondent No.2 Corporation with effect from 30.11.2003. He was paid Rs.1,38,770/- towards gratuity and he, therefore, filed an application before respondent No.1 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) for payment of the balance amount of Rs.27,303/- and a further sum of Rs.7,752/- towards salary due for the month of November, 2003. Respondent No.2 resisted the said claim on the ground that the petitioner’s salary was wrongly fixed and the same was rectified while auditing the terminal benefits. It was further averred by respondent No.1 that according to the pre-audited certificate, a sum of Rs.17,446.90 ps. was recoverable towards wages paid in excess from November, 1983 to November, 2003. Having regard to the said stand, respondent No.1 dismissed the application by observing that the petitioner has not disputed the said claim of respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that the order of respondent No.1 is not liable to be interfered with. The scope of proceedings under Section 33- C(2) is confined to recovery of the amounts, which are not in dispute. Irrespective of its sustainability or otherwise, the claim of respondent No.2, is that a sum of Rs.17,446.90 ps. is recoverable from the petitioner. When once a bona fide plea is raised, the Labour Court is not entitled to adjudicate upon such a disputed claim. Therefore, respondent No.1 rightly dismissed the application. If the petitioner disputes the correctness of the claim of respondent No.2 that he was paid excess salary to the extent of Rs.17,446.90 ps, he can question the said claim by availing appropriate remedy before the competent forum. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.11493 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:28.04.2009 usd