CWP-3835-2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CWP-3835-2001 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.07.2026 DARSHAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. … Petitioner (s) Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, JALANDHAR AND ORS. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. F.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Ashwani Parashar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1) The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 02.06.2000 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking recovery of the alleged balance amount of back wages has been dismissed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to the earlier award of the Labour Court, which was upheld by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that despite reinstatement, the respondents released only a part of the back wages, by treating the petitioner as a daily wager, whereas he was entitled to wages in the regular pay scale along with all consequential benefits. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3835-2001 (O&M) -2- It is further submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and illegally dismissed the petitioner's claim, without properly considering his entitlement. 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is legal, well reasoned and calls for no interference. It is contended that the earlier award merely directed reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of half back wages, and did not confer upon the petitioner the status of a regular employee or entitle him to wages in the regular pay scale. It is further submitted that the amount payable under the award was duly computed and paid to the petitioner. The present claim involves determination of a fresh and disputed right, namely, the petitioner's entitlement to regular pay scales, which falls outside the scope of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5) The record reveals that the earlier industrial dispute regarding termination of the petitioner's services culminated in an award directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages. The said award attained finality after it was upheld by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioner joined service and accepted the amount released towards back wages under protest. Subsequently, he invoked the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming the balance amount on the premise that he was entitled to wages in the regular pay scale. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3835-2001 (O&M) -3- 6) The learned Labour Court, upon considering the pleadings and the material available on record, dismissed the petitioner's claim. It held that the relief claimed by the petitioner required adjudication of his entitlement to regular pay scales, which had neither been recognised by the employer nor determined in the earlier award. Consequently, such a claim could not be entertained in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, which are confined to computation or recovery of an existing and pre-determined benefit. 7) The scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is well settled. The Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under the said provision acts in the nature of an executing Court. It can compute or recover a benefit flowing from an existing right but cannot adjudicate upon the existence of such right where the same is seriously disputed. If the entitlement itself requires adjudication, the appropriate remedy lies elsewhere under the provisions of the Act. Regarding this, reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.813 of 2022 titled as M/s Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another, wherein it was observed that:- "6. At the outset it is required to be noted that respondent No.2 herein filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, demanding difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012. It was thus the case on behalf of respondent No.2 that he was working with the appellant as a salesman. However, the appellant had taken a categorical stand that respondent No.2 was never engaged by the appellant. It was specifically the case on behalf of the appellant that respondent No.2 had never worked in the establishment in the post of salesman. Therefore, once there was a serious dispute that respondent No.2 had worked as an employee of the appellant and there was a very serious dispute raised by the appellant that respondent No.2 was not in employment as a salesman as claimed by respondent No.2, thereafter, it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer- employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.2. As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3835-2001 (O&M) -4- 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. As held by this Court in the case of Ganesh Razak and Anr. (supra), the labour court's jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is like that of an executing court. As per the settled preposition of law without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (See Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235). In the case of Kankuben (supra), it is observed and held that whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act. It is further observed that the benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act is necessarily a preexisting benefit or one flowing from a preexisting right. The difference between a preexisting right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act while the latter does not. 7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the fact of the case on hand, when there was no prior adjudication on the issue whether respondent No.2 herein was in employment as a salesman as claimed by respondent No.2 herein and there was a serious dispute raised that respondent No.2 was never in employment as a salesman and the documents relied upon by respondent No.2 were seriously disputed by the appellant and it was the case on behalf of the appellant that those documents are forged and/or false, thereafter the Labour Court ought not to have proceeded further with the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ought to have relegated respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of reference and get his right crystalized and/or adjudicate upon. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court has not appreciated the aforesaid facts and has confirmed the same without adverting to the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act." 8) In the present case, the petitioner's claim is founded on the assertion that he ought to have been treated as a regular employee and paid wages accordingly. However the earlier award neither declared the petitioner to be a regular employee nor directed payment of wages in the regular pay scale. It merely granted reinstatement with continuity of service and half back wages. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly held that the question sought to be raised SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3835-2001 (O&M) -5- by the petitioner could not be decided in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. 9) Trite to say that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only when the findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. No ground has been made out to warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10) Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 22, 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document