[2026:RJ-JP:7169] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8745/2018 1. Malviya National Institute Of Technology Through Its Director, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 2. Malviya National Institute Of Technology Through Its Registrar, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus M.n.i.t. Mess Karmchari Sangh, Jaipur Through General Secretary Gangaram, R/o M.n.i.t. Campus, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarthak Rastogi Mr. Tushar Kumar Mr. Kunal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocte with Mr. Kunal Kant Rawat, Mr. Abhshek Mewara and Ms. Dhriti Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/02/2026 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8745/2018 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: It is therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may accept and allow this Writ Petition, call for the entire record and by appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the award dated 12.10.2017. If during the pendency of this Writ Petition any amount is paid and if ultimately Writ is allowed then the amount paid should be permitted to be recovered. [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (2 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] 2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of an award dated 04.04.1997 in I.D. Case No. 32/1988, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the I.D. Act), was filed by respondent wherein on 12.10.2017 the following order was passed by Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur:- vkns'k gS fd izkFkhZ ,e-,u-vkbZ-Vh- eSl deZpkjh la?k] t;iqj tfj;s egkea=h xaxkjke irk ,e,.uvkbZVh dSEil] tokgj ykyusg: ekxZ] t;iqj }kjk izLrqr ;g izkFkZuk i= fo:) vizkFkhZ la[;k 1& funs'kd ,e-,u-vkbZ-Vh tokgj yky usg: ekxZ] t;iqj rFkk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2&jftLVªkj] ekyoh; us'kuy bUlVh;wV vkQ VsDuksyksth] tokgj yky usg: ekxZ] t;iqj] vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj] vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku us vokMZ o fof/k ds vuqlkj vokMZ ds ykHkkFkhZ Jfedksa dks cdk;k osru HkRrksa dk lgh izdkj ls x.kuk dj Hkqxrku fd;k x;k] lkfcr ugha gS] vr% ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds izdj.k la[;k vkbZ-Vh- 32@1988 esa ikfjr vokMZ fnukad 04-04-1997 ds vuqdze esa izkFkZuki= ds lkFk layXu lwph *v* esa of.kZr dze la[;k 1 ls 48 o dze la[;k 89] rFkk dze la[;k 90] o 92 yxk;r 95 rd ds e`r Jfedksa ds fof/kd izfrfuf/kx.k] mDr Jhfedx.k dks ftUgsa foi{kh laLFkku dh lsok esa nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; iw.kZ gks pqdk gS] foi{kh laLFkku esa izpfyr fu;fer [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (3 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] U;wure in dh U;wure osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru fnukad 01-01-1997 ls iznku djus gsrq nkf;Rok/khu gSa] tks le; le; ij fjokbZt osru J`a[kyk ds vuqlkj e; egaxkbZ HkRrk o lh-lh-,- dh jkf'k] tks le; le; ij ifjofrZr gqbZ] dh rhu ekg esa x.kuk dj mldk Hkqxrku fu;r vof/k esa djsa vU;Fkk cdk;k jkf'k mDr izkFkhz] vkns'k dh fnukad ls lkr izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr ikus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs rFkk bl izkFkZuki= ds tfj;s vokMZ ls lacaf/kr jsQjsal ls vU;Fkk is'k Jfedksa lwph *v* esa of.kZr dze la[;k 49 ls 88 rd Jfedx.k] vokMZ ds ckn esa HkrhZ gq, Fks ftUgksaus nks lky dk dk;Zdky ckn esa iwjk fd;k] os ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj U;wure in dh U;wure osru J`a[kyk dkuwuh :i ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS vr% bl laca/k esa vkaf'kd :i ls mudk izkFkZuki= vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj os bl izkFkZuki= ds tfj;s dksbZ jkf'k dEI;wV djk dj vizkFkhZ laLFkku ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha ekus tkrs gSaA 3. The petitioners, who are employers, aggrieved from the aforementioned computation under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, have challenged the order on the ground that while computing the benefits, the Labour Court has travelled beyond the scope of the award and computed the benefits, which were not allowed by the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent. [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (4 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] 5. Both the sides are in agreement that the scope of Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is only for computation of monetary benefit from any pre-existing right or adjudicated benefit or money owed by an employer. Primarily, it is an execution proceedings and not to be treated as adjudication of any substantive dispute or new claim. 6. In case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Rajak, (1995) 1 SCC 235, further followed in case of Bombay Chemical Industry vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, (2022) 5 SCC 629, it was held that wherever a workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit from his employer and was denied of such benefit, he can approach Labour Court under Section 33C(2) for computation in form of execution proceedings. The computation is based upon a pre-existing benefit or from a pre-existing right. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ganesh Rajak (supra) referred a Constitution Bench decision in case of Central Bank of India vs P.S. Rajagopalan, 1964 (3) SCR 140, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of Labour Court under Section 33C(2) extend to interpretation of award or settlement on which workman’s right rests, like the executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution. 8. In the instant case, the award dated 04.04.1997 is passed in following manner: vr% izdj.k esa fuEu izdkj ls vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%& [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (5 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] v/;{k ekyoh;k bUthfu;fjax dkWyst eSl deZpkjh la?k] e;ad Vkdht ds ikl] Je dY;k.k dsUnz] LVs'ku jksM t;iqj }kjk jftLVªkj ekyoh;k jhtuy bUthfu;fjax dkWyst] tokgj yky usg: ekxZ] t;iqj ds le{k j[kh xbZ ekax dks bl izdkj fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gS fd vokMZ ds iSjk la[;k 2 esa of.kZr lwph ds vuqlkj lHkh Jfed ekyoh; jhtuy bathfu;fjax dkWyst ds gh deZpkjh Jfed gSaA mijksDr leLr Jfed ftUgsa foi{kh laLFkku dh lsok esa nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; iw.kZ gks pqdk gS] foi{kh laLFkku esa izpfyr fu;fer U;wure in dh U;wure osru J`a[kyk fnukad 01-01- 1997 ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA rFkk os vU; jkT; ljdkj ds midzeksa dh Hkkafr fu;fer osru J`a[kyk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 9. The award dated 04.04.1997 clearly declared that workmen are entitled for minimum of pay scale for regular post, but the Tribunal has specifically denied entitlement of workmen to get regular pay scale in parity with other employees. 10. The award dated 04.04.1997 was challenged by present petitioners by filing S.B. Civil Petition No. 6119/1997. The said petition was decided along with another writ petition No. 4502/1997 titled as Kailashchand vs Industrial Tribunal and another, vide order dated 15.02.2010, in following manner:- "15) Evidence on record reveals that control of the and supervision over the working employees of the Mess Committee rest with the officers of the MNIT. Finding recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal that there did exist relationship of master and servant between employees of mess committee and MNIT has to [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (6 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] be therefore upheld and argument to the contrary merits rejection. 16) Coming now to the second writ petition filed by some of the workmen. I find that learned Tribunal keeping in view over all factsituation and considering that reference case was pending before it since 1988 and that requiring the management of the MNIT to pay all the Mess Employees regular pay scales from the date of their initial appointment or from the date of completion of two years therefrom, may not be justified and therefore to balance the counter claims, it directed that such of mess employees, who have completed two years with the MNIT Management shall be paid minimum of the pay scale of the post held by them w.e.f. 1/1/1997. In this view of the matter. I do not find any justification for petitioners in SBCWP No. 4502/1997 to claim regular pay scale from the date of completion of two years. 17) Both the writ deserve to be dismissed. petitions therefore 18) In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs." 11. Aforesaid order was further challenged by present petitioners by filing DB SAW No. 278/2010 and same was dismissed on 26.07.2010. A contempt petition No. 1299/2011 was filed by the respondent and same was disposed of on 25.02.2016 with following observation: "The petitioners have alleged willful disobedience and non compliance of the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the Single Bench of this Court whereby the respondents were directed to pay the petitioners, who had completed two years with MNIT [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (7 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] Management, the minimum of the pay scale of the post held by them with effect from 01.01.1997. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is averred that the petitioners have been paid minimum of the pay scale. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, states that although the petitioners have been paid the minimum of the pay scale but the allowances payable therewith have not been paid to the petitioners. He further states that he shall be seeking recourse to section 33-C(2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for claiming the payable allowances. In view of the above, I do not find any Justification in continuing with these proceedings. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged. It shall of course, be open to the petitioner, if so advised; to raise any outstanding claim in accordance with law." 12. During course of argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that under the instruction, he is making a statement that as per award dated 04.04.1997 passed by Industrial Tribunal, the respondent (workmen) would pay minimum of regular pay scale for lowest post. He also submits that as and when new pay commission recommendation was implemented, the minimum pay would be revised accordingly. He also submits that the workmen of the respondent Union are not entitled for any allowance, but in case allowance is paid by the petitioners, it shall not be recovered. 13. Considered award dated 04.04.1997 and further order dated 15.02.2010 in writ petition number 6119/1997, the Labour [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (8 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] Court can only determine or compute the monetary benefit under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act as per pre-existing right, but it cannot direct payment of dearness allowance or CCA or any other allowance which was not declared as entitlement under the award dated 04.04.1997. There is a difference between entitlement as per award or settlement and claim as a matter of right or parity. 14. Considering the scope of Section 33C(2) of ID Act and the award dated 04.04.1997, order of Labour Court up to the extent of directing the employer to pay minimum of pay scale applicable upon them as per award is upheld, but the direction to make payment of dearness allowance (DA) and CCA is set aside as same is not part of the award. Thus, the petition is disposed in following terms: 1. The petitioners shall pay minimum of regular pay scale revised from time to time on basis of implementation of pay commission to the members of respondent who were beneficiaries as per award dated 04.04.1997. 2. The respondent (workmen) are not entitled for any allowance but if any allowance is paid till date, then same shall not be recovered or adjusted against any payment of arrears. 3. The petitioners shall calculate and prepare due drawn statement with regard to payment and arrear, if any due, and same be paid to concerned workmen within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of copy of the order. [2026:RJ-JP:7169] (9 of 9) [CW-8745/2018] 4. The petitioners shall supply the computation sheet and due-drawn statement of each and every workman to the respondent. 5. With aforesaid the order dated 12.10.2017 in LCC No.27/2016 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Jaipur is hereby modified. 15. With aforesaid, petition and miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /11-12