[2025:RJ-JP:36641-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 948/2023 Shri Sadhu Ram Saini Son Of Late Shri Bhanwara Ram Saini, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 77, Arjun Nagar (South) Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Raj Rjya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, Bais Godown Circle, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director. 2. Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 10/09/2025 1. The challenge made by the appellant is to the award passed by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has held that the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 08.09.2010 is beyond the jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had raised a dispute through the Union claiming his name to be included in the seniority list and grant of pay scale. The award was passed in his favour dated 01.10.2001 directing for his entitlement to receive pay scale and other monetary benefits w.e.f. 28.12.1981 onwards on the post of Salesman Ayurved. The [2025:RJ-JP:36641-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-948/2023] arrears were to be paid within one month along with interest @ 12% since the amount was released. However, dissatisfied with the computation the appellant filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 before the Labour Court claiming that the pay scales were required to be paid in terms of the pay scales which have been revised from time to time for the post of Salesman Ayurved. The order dated 08.09.2010 was passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2). The respondents challenged the said order whereafter learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed in favour of the appellant dated 08.09.2010 as noticed above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that once award was passed in his favour on 01.10.2001, the appellant was entitled to receive all benefits of the award. He submits that though the respondents issued orders for releasing of pay scale but they were not in accordance with the directions issued by the Labour Court vide award dated 01.10.2001. He further submits that the appellant was not given option for revised pay scale pertaining to the years 1987, 1989, 1998 and correct pay fixation was not done, therefore, claimed amount of Rs. 2,41,291/-. The respondents filed writ petition challenging the order dated 08.09.2010 pointing out that as option had been given under the pay scale rules 1987, 1989 and 1998, the appellant‘s pay scale was fixed which was to be treated as final in terms of Rule 10(5) of the Rules. Once the option was given the same could not be changed if the appellant is not satisfied both the computation, the same give rise to fresh cause of action and therefore, the Labour [2025:RJ-JP:36641-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-948/2023] Court had committed an error in allowing the application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order had been passed by the Labour Court, on the basis of wrong computation. 5. We find that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to these aspects as raised by the respective parties but proceeded to hold that the Labour Court would not have jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 to grant revised pay scale to the appellant as it was fresh cause of action for which the appellant should have raised a dispute to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of fresh reference. We find that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a wrongful assumption. The claim raised by the appellant was out of award already passed on 01.10.2001. The provision of Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 would have an application and authorized officer under the Industrial Dispute Act would have decided the actual benefits which the appellant would have been entitled to receive under the award. The case of the respondents was also not on the said basis rather on the basis that the computation which has been done by the Labour Court was erroneous as option had also not been given and second option was not available. 6. The issue needs to be addressed in the present case by us as it would not be appropriate to send matter back to the learned Single Judge for the purpose of deciding the matter in the light of provisions under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is apparent that at this stage, as regards exact amount payable, adjudication can be [2025:RJ-JP:36641-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-948/2023] done by the concerned Labour Court. Perusal of the present case on merits reflects that the respondents had remained ex parte before the Labour Court while it decided the application under Section 33-C(2). Despite the fact, the reply which had been filed by the respondents was considered by the concerned Labour Court. It is also noticed that an option was given on 22.03.2005 by appellant to grant him benefit of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.1986 in the pay scale 1120-2050 and in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.1988 in the pay scale of 1200-2050 w.e.f. 28.12.1990 onwards. The said option was not considered by the respondents without giving any reason and resultantly the pay scale was fixed w.e.f. 01.09.1996. 7. A bare reading of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 makes it clear that where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, and if any question arises as to the amount due or the amount at which such benefit should be computed, the question may be decided by the Labour Court. Therefore, merely because a wrong computation has been made by the employer in pursuance of the original award, the question regarding the correct computation falls well within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The same cannot be said to constitute a fresh cause of action requiring a fresh reference of dispute by the workman who already has an award in his favour. [2025:RJ-JP:36641-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-948/2023] 8. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of MCD v. Ganesh Razak, (1995) 1 SCC 235. A bare perusal of the observations made in para 12 of the said judgment makes it clear that where the very basis of the claim or entitlement of the workman is disputed, and there is no earlier adjudication in respect thereof, and the entitlement is not incidental to an adjudication already made, then such claims fall outside the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, in the present case, while passing the original award dated 01.10.2001, the Labour Court held the petitioner entitled to the pay scale of the post of Salesman/Ayurveda with effect from 28.12.1981, along with arrears of pay and all consequential benefits. Therefore, the benefit of the revised pay scale, in pursuance thereof, is clearly incidental to the original relief granted by the Labour Court in its award. 9. In this view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Labour Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while passing the order dated 08.09.2010 in favour of the appellant– employee. 10. The argument advanced by the employer that once an order of computation is passed in pursuance of the original award, any grievance of the employee with respect to such computation gives rise to a fresh cause of action requiring a fresh reference of dispute is clearly contrary to the very object and mandate of [2025:RJ-JP:36641-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-948/2023] Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the said contention is not sustainable. 11. If the benefits of revised pay scale and the benefit of selection scale in terms of the circular dated 25.09.1992 is not granted for the first stage depriving given all the benefits as per original award dated 01.10.2001, the computation as has been done by the Labour Court in para 8 and 9 remain undisputed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order passed by the Labour Court. Moreso as there is no challenge to the original award by the writ petitioner/respondents. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) is restored. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J ANIL SHARMA /79