- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4938 WP No. 103159 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103159 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION, R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION, DIST: GADAG. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT.S.HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: FAKKIRGOUDA S/O. SHIVANGOUDA SHANABOGAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, R/O: MIG NO.01, H.NO.172, HUDCO COLONY, SIDDALINGESHWARNAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG-580 028. … RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4938 WP No. 103159 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Prashant S.Hosmani., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Notice to the respondent was ordered on 10.02.2025. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The short facts are these: It is stated that the respondent was working as a Traffic Controller in the establishment of the Corporation. He retired from service in 2013. The Corporation paid the retirement benefits in a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- to the respondent in 2014. He filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in Application No.12/2017 seeking computation of the amount due to him and directing the Corporation to pay the same along with interest. The Labor Court vide order ated:14.11.2023 partly allowed the application. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petitions. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4938 WP No. 103159 of 2024 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the application filed by the respondent under Section 33(C)(2) is maintainable. 5. The facts of the case are quite simple. The captioned writ petition arises out of a proceeding brought by the respondent under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D. Act. The Labor Court has allowed the claim made by the respondent for interest on the late payment of retirement benefits and held that he is entitled to 8% interest for the period of late payment. The reasoning employed in the order is unsustainable in law. It is not in dispute that the litigation relates to the application filed under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D. Act. The scope and ambit of Section 33 C (2) have been defined by catena of decisions by the Apex Court. In other words, where a case involves an investigation into the applicant’s right to the relief and the corresponding liability of the employer, such an investigation is impermissible in an application under section 33 C (2) of the I.D. Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4938 WP No. 103159 of 2024 Suffice it to note that the jurisdiction of the Labor Court under Section 33 C (2) was dealt with by the Supreme Court exhaustively in several cases including MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE VS SK ATHANI reported in AIR 1973 SC 2448. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Labor Court under Section 33 C (2) is analogous to the execution court. Section 33 C (2) is a proceeding like an execution. In the present case, the applicant has claimed that he is entitled to arrears and also interest on delayed payment. But it is relevant to note that there has been no adjudication. The Corporation has disputed the entitlement of the applicant to claim arrears and also delayed payment. Therefore, in the absence of adjudication of the right of the respondent to recover the amount in question from the Corporation, the Labor Court could not have directed the Corporation to calculate and pay the arrears and also delayed payment in a proceeding under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4938 WP No. 103159 of 2024 and disregarded relevant matters. Furthermore, moving an application under Section 33(C)(2) and seeking arrears and also delayed payment does not arise. The application is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. Therefore, this court deems it proper to quash the order of the Labor Court. 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in Application No.12/2017 is quashed. 7. Resultantly, a Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 20