[2026:RJ-JP:29] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12108/2024 Rukmanand Sharma S/o Shri Hajari Lal Sharma, 211, Patrakar Colony, Dhaulai, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Limi. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, In Front Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2024 Mridul Sharma S/o Shri Shrikant Manjul, 438, Patrakar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8673/2024 Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Heera Lal Sharma, Plot No. 3 Baldev Bada Nagar, Gandhi Nagar West, 200 Foot Bypass, Lalarpura, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus [2026:RJ-JP:29] (2 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8683/2024 Laluram Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Shri Sanwaliya Sweets Caterers, Shop No. 17, Krishna Market, New Loha Mandi Road, Vki Road No. 14, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8685/2024 Hemant Kumar Patwa S/o Shri Kishan Patwa, Ward No. 12, Near Durbalnath Mandir Bandikui, Dausa ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:29] (3 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8686/2024 Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Plot No. 10, Panchwati Colony, Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8695/2024 Mahaveer Prasad Suman S/o Shri Bihari Lal Suman, House No. 886 Keshavpura, Sector-7 Kota ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8696/2024 Ghanshyam Jangid S/o Shri Ishwar Lal Jangid, C-263, Hans Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:29] (4 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8699/2024 Shilendra Kumar Upadhayay S/o Shri Mangti Lal Upadhayay, 182, Banshipuri-First, Jagatpura, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8700/2024 Virendra Singh Rajput S/o Shri Kishan Singh, 85/731-32, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8701/2024 Vijay Kumawat S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Kumawat, Kumawat Colony, [2026:RJ-JP:29] (5 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] Hirnoda, Tehsil-Phulera, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8703/2024 Rajesh Grover S/o Shri Charan Lal Grover, R/o 85/403, Sector - 8, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8704/2024 Shrawan Kumar S/o Shri Chhitarram, Village Joshipura, Post Marauth, Tehsil Nawan, District Nagaur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:29] (6 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8711/2024 Sandeep Kumawat S/o Shri Inder Kumar Kumawat, Plot No. 53, Shiva Nagar, Chhapolo Ki Dhani, Diggi - Malpura, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9053/2024 Pradeep Kumawat S/o Shri Radheyshyam Kumawat, Plot No. 48, Gayatri Nagar, Sodala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9070/2024 Ritesh Gautam S/o Shri Sushil Mohan Sharma, 73/97, Paramhans Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur ----Petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:29] (7 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9131/2024 Sanjay Gautam S/o Shri Late Mathuresh Sharma, F-2, Tirupati Balaji Complex, Panchwati, Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9132/2024 Sandeep Pareek S/o Shri Raghunandan Pareek, Plot No. 715, Joshi House, Pano Ka Dariba, Subhash Chowk, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:29] (8 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9146/2024 Dalip Kumar S/o Shri Sahabram Khileri, Plot No. 40, Radhanikunj First, Iskon Mandir Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9147/2024 Rakesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Satyanarayan Verma, 10 B, Sindhi Colony, Rajapark, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, D.B. Corp Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar) 10, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 2. Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Rajasthan, Infront Of N.b.c., Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Shri Patanjali Bhoo, Retired Additional Labour Commissioner And Paden Joint Secretary (Labour) C-128- B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri Ms. Minakshi Jain, GC with Ms. Supriya Rana Mr. Udit Sharma Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore & Ms. Saba Naaz for Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG [2026:RJ-JP:29] (9 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 05/01/2026 1. These writ petitions were filed by petitioners workmen aggrieved from order dated 26.04.2023 in 21 applications filed by different workmen under Section 33(c)(1) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The prayer of the workmen was recovery of dues against respondent Manager/ Managing Director, D.B. Corp. Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar), 10, JLN Marg, Jaipur. 2. The Additional Commissioner-cum- Joint Secretary (Labour), Rajasthan, Jaipur has decided 21 applications of workmen by a common order and rejected all of them. 3. For sake of brevity, we are reproducing relief prayer of lead matter Rukmanand Sharma Vs. Managing Director & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12108/2024); vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa vk/kkjksa ij ;g fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dj ;kph ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fouez izkFkZuk djrk gS fd ekuuh; izdj.k dk leLr fjdkMZ ryc dj%& 01- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns”k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ”k tkjh dj izR;FkhZ Øekad 1 dks funsZf”kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd og ;kph dks ekuuh; Je U;k;ky;] izFke t;iqj }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 13- 07-2022 ds iSjk 17 esa fn;s x;s funsZ”kksa ds vuqlkj jkf”k dk Hkqxrku djsaA 02- fodYi ds :i esa ;kph ;g fuosnu djrk gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns”k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ”k tkjh dj izR;FkhZ Øekad 2 }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 26-04-2023 dks vikLr djrs gq;s izR;FkhZ Øekad 2 dks funsZf”kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd os ;kph dks feyus ;ksX; jkf”k dh x.kuk djds ;kph dks feyus ;ksX; jkf”k izR;FkhZ Øekad 1 ls olwy fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh djsaA 03- fodYi ds :i esa ;kph ;g fuosnu djrk gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns”k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ”k tkjh dj ekuuh; Je U;k;ky;] izFke] t;iqj dks funsZf”kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd os ;kph dks feyus ;ksX; fuf”pr jkf”k dh x.kuk djrs gq, vkns”k ikfjr djsaA [2026:RJ-JP:29] (10 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] 04- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns”k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ”k tkjh dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; izR;FkhZ Øekad 3 ds fo:) ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;ksa ds foijhr vkns”k ikfjr djus ds dkj.k mfpr dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus gsrq jkT; ljdkj ds le{k vf/kdkjh dks funsZf”kr djus dh d`ik djsaA 05- vU; dksbZ vuqrks’k o fjV ;kfpdk dk gtkZ&[kpkZ tks ekuuh; vf/kdj.k mfpr le>s fnykus dh d`ik djsA 4. The prayer clause in other connected matters are identical, and the Additional Commissioner has rejected the applications dated 17-10-2022 and 19-10-2022 by a common order. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner(s) were employed by D.B. Corp. Ltd., and their services were terminated, by employer. The termination order was challenged, and the Labour Court has declared the termination as illegal and arbitrary. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1, D.B. Corp. Ltd., has not made any payment towards pay and allowances (salary) and other emoluments to the petitioners, thus, the petitioners have filed separate applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1947”), and the Labour Court has disposed of the applications in the following manner (one of the order reproduced):- 20- izkFkhZ dk ;g izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk&33lh&2 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e fo#) vizkFkhZ Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vizkFkhZ dks vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 25-5-2017 ls vDVwcj 2019 rd dh vof/k ds lEiw.kZ osru] HkRrs o vU; ns; ykHkksa dh jkf”k ¼Vªsofyax ,.M dUoSa”k vykmUl dks NksM+dj½ rFkk izkFkhZ ds fuyEcudky ds iw.kZ osru dh jkf”k ¼Vªsofyax ,.M dUoSa”k vykmUl dks NksM+dj½ dh lax.kuk izdj.k esa izLrqr M~;wMªku स्टेटेमेंटे izn”kZ MCY;w-5 ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds lsok vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj dj izkFkhZ dks fu;ekuqlkj Hkqxrku djsaA izkFkhZ dks fuyEcu dky esa tks jkf”k dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gS o jkf”k] izkFkhZ dks fuyEcudky esa fn;s tkus okys lEiw.kZ osru o HkRrksa dh jkf”k esa ls lek;ksftr dh tk ldsxhA izkFkhZ [2026:RJ-JP:29] (11 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] dks mDr leLr jkf”k dh vnk;xh rhu ekg esa dh tkosA rhu ekg esa mDr leLr jkf”k;ksa dh vnk;xh ugha djus dh lwjr esa izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ls vkns”k fnukad ls 12 izfr”kr okf’kZd nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA U;k;k/kh”k Je U;k;ky;&izFke] t;iqjA 21- izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 33lh&2 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; vkt fnukad dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k] tks fu;ekuqlkj lwpukFkZ jkT; ljdkj dks Hkstk tkosA U;k;k/kh”k Je U;k;ky;&izFke] t;iqjA 5. An application is filed by the petitioner(s) before the Labour Commissioner under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 for recovery and payment of due salary and allowances as per direction of the Labour Court. In all the matters, the applications of identical nature were filed, and for ready reference, we are reproducing the contents of application from one of the files as under; vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 33¼lh½¼1½ ds varxZr izkFkZuk&i= ekU;oj] mijksDr fo’k;kUrxZr izkFkhZ fuEufyf[kr vuqlkj fuosnu djrk gS%& 1- ;g fd izkFkhZ Mh-ch- dkWiZ fyfeVsM ¼nSfud HkkLdj½ esa lhfu;j ,XthD;qfVo ¼LdSfuax vkWijsVj½ ds in ij dk;Zjr Jfed FkkA fnukad 25-05-2017 dks izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k Fkk] ftlds fo#) izkFkhZ us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33&, ds vUrxZr ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k FkkA 2- ;g fd ekuuh; Je U;k;ky;] Øe la[;k 02]] t;iqj us vius vkns”k fnukad 04-10- 2018 }kjk izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djrs [2026:RJ-JP:29] (12 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] gq, izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dks mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha ekukA 3- ;g fd vizkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; Je U;k;ky;] Øe la[;k 02] t;iqj ds mDr vkns”kksa dh ikyuk esa cdk;k osru&HkRrksa dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA blds i”pkr izkFkhZ us cdk;k osru&HkRrksa ds Hkqxrku djok, tkus ds fy, ekuuh; Je U;k;ky;] Øe la[;k izFke] t;iqj ds le{k vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 33¼lh½¼2½ ds varxZr izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k FkkA 4- ;g fd ekuuh; Je U;k;ky;] Øe la[;k izFke] t;iqj us vius vkns”k fnukad 13-07-2022 }kjk izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djrs gq, cdk;k osru&HkRrksa dk Hkqxrku rhu ekg esa djus ds vizkFkhZ dks vkns”k ikfjr fd,A 5- ;g fd ekuuh; Je U;k;ky;] Øe la[;k izFke] t;iqj us vius vkns”kksa esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd rhu ekg esa mDr leLr jkf”k;ksa dh vnk;xh ugha djus dh lwjr esa izkFkhZ vkns”k fnukad ls 12 izfr”kr okf’kZd nj ls C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA 6- ;g fd vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks bu vkns”kksa dh ikyuk esa vHkh rd cdk;k osru] HkRrs o vU; ykHkksa dh jkf”k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k gSA vr% vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 33¼lh½¼1½ ds varxZr izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj izkFkhZ fuosnu djrk fd ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; Øe la[;k& izFke] t;iqj ds vkns”k fnukad 13 tqykbZ] 2022 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds cdk;k osru&HkRrksa dh jkf”k C;kt lfgr vizkFkhZ ls olwyh dj izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku djokus dh d`ik djsaA ¼txnh”k izlkn “kekZ½ izkFkhZ 6. The Respondent, D.B. Corp. The Respondent, D.B. Corp. Ltd. (Dainik Bhaskar), has filed reply, and the same is reproduced as under; Hkkx&1 izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr 33 ¼lh½ ¼1½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 fuEu [2026:RJ-JP:29] (13 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] dkj.kksa ls dkuwuu vekU; o pyus ;ksX; ugha gS %& 1- ;g fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼2½ ds rgr ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; dks ;g “kfDr iznku dh xbZ gS fd og fdlh jkf”k dh ns;rk ds laca/k esa nLrkost o lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fdlh fuf”pr jkf”k dh x.kuk@dEI;wV dj ldrh gSA 2- ;g fd izkFkhZ }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼2½ ds rgr ,d dEI;wVs”ku izkFkZuk i= ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; ls :i;s 10]01]933@& ek= dh jkf”k dh x.kuk djus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ Fkh ,oa ftlds laca/k esa izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼2½ ds lkFk ,d vuqyXud layXu dj jkf”k pkgh xbZ FkhA 3- ;g fd ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; la[;k 1 }kjk izkFkZuk i= varxZr 33 ¼lh½ ¼2½ }kjk okn la[;k ,ylhlh&23@2020 ij tks yafcr Fkk] esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fdlh Hkh fuf”pr jkf”k dh ns;rk ds ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh vkns”k ikfjr ugha fd;k gSA 4- ;g fd fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa }kjk izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼1½ ds rgr izkFkZuk i= rc gh izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS] tcfd Jfedksa dks fdlh le>kSrs vFkok vokMZ vFkok vkS| ksfxd fookn ds psIVj VA ,oa VB ds rgr dksbZ jkf”k dh ik=rk cuh@curh gksA ;gka ;g mYysf[kr djuk mfpr gksxk fd izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk ,ylhvkj 23@2017 esa ikfjr vokMZ esa ;g dgha Hkh mYysf[kr ugha fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ fdlh osru HkRrs vkfn dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS@FkkA ;gka ;g Hkh mYysf[kr djuk mfpr gksxk fd tc ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDrkuqlkj fdlh osru HkRrs vkfn ds laca/k esa dksbZ Li’V vkns”k ugha fn;s x;s Fks] ml lwjr esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼1½ ds rgr dksbZ dk;Zokgh okaNuh; ugha gSA 5- ;g fd tc vkns”k fnukd 04-10-2018 Je U;k;ky; }kjk fdlh Hkh jkf”k dh ik=rk ds dksbZ Hkh fuf”pr vkns”k ugha fn;s x;s gSa [2026:RJ-JP:29] (14 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] rks ,sls esa ekU; vf/kdkjh dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼1½ ds rgr dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS rFkk uk gh mlds vf/kdkj {ks= esa gSA 6- ;g fd vks|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼1½ ds rgr ekU; vf/kdkjh dks fdlh Hkh jkf”k dh x.kuk djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA mDr /kkjk ds rgr ekuuh; vf/kdkjh dks ek= lhfer vf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS] fd l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk fuf”pr x.kuk dh jkf”k ds fØ;kUo;u gsrq gh ekuuh; vf/kdkjh dks “kfDr;ka nh xbZ gSa] tks fd orZeku izdj.k esa ugha gSA Hkkx&2 mijksDr izkjafHkd vkifRr;ksa ij viuk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr j[krs gq;s vizkFkhZ] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 33 ¼lh½ ¼1½ dk enokj tokc fuEu izdkj izLrqr djrk gS& 1- ;g fd] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dh en la[;k 1 ,oa 2 ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd] mDr enksa esa dFku fjdkMZ ls lacaf/kr gSA ;gka ;g mYysf[kr djuk djuk mfpr gksxk fd ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk tks vokWMZ ,ylhvkj 23@2017 esa ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk] mlesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dksbZ cSd ostst vFkok fdlh vU; HkRrksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ vokWMZ ikfjr ugha fd;k Fkk ,oa dsoy ek= izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dks mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha ekuk FkkA 2- ;g fd] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuki= dh en la[;k 3 ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd] mijksDrkuqlkj tc ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk vokWMZ esa dksbZ cSd ostst vFkok fdUgh HkRrksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% vizkFkhZ ij fdlh Hkh izdkj ls osru HkRrksa ds Hkqxrku dk nkf;Ro ugha FkkA mDr en esa tgka rd izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 33 lh 2 lcaf/kr rF; gS og fjdkMZ las lcaf/kr gSA 3- ;g fd] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dh en la[;k 4 yxk;r 6 ds lca/k esa vizkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd] ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns”k fnukad 13-07-2022 esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fdlh Hkh jkf”k dh dksbZ fuf”pr x.kuk ugha dh [2026:RJ-JP:29] (15 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] xbZ gS] vr% vizkFkhZ ij fdlh Hkh jkf”k dks nsus dh dksbZ ck/;rk ugha curh gSA 4- ;g fd] izkFkhZ }kjk vius izkFkZuk i= esa tks vuqrks’k pkgk x;k gS og izkFkhZ drbZ Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 33 lh 1 fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dkuwuu vFkok vU; :i ls pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% ekuuh; vf/kdkjh ls fuosnu gS fd orZeku izdj.k esa muds }kjk ;g ekuk tk;s fd %& 1- izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 33 lh 1 vizkFkhZ }kjk Hkkx&1 esa mYysf[kr dkj.kksa dh otg ls dkuwuu vekU; ,oa pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 2- izkFkhZ fdlh Hkh izdkj ls pkgs x;s vFkok vU; jkf”k@vuqrks’k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 3- izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= nqHkkZoukiw.kZ gS ,oa lO;; fujLruh; gSA 7. After considering the application and reply, 21 applications of workmen were disposed of by a common order dated 26-04- 2023, and the order is reproduced as under:- vkns”k fuEu Jfedksa us izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 fd /kkjk 33¼lh½¼1½ fnukad 17-10-2022 o 19-10-2022 is”k fd;sA ftl ds }kjk Je U;k;ky; ds izdj.k esa fu/kkZj.k ds vuqlkj cdk;k osru jkf”k fu;kstd uzcU/k funs”kd] Mh-ch-dk;Z- fyfeVsM ¼nSfud HkkLdj½ 10- ts0,y0,u0ekxZ] t;iqj ls olwy dj Hkqxrku djus dk fuosnu fd;k%& Ø- la- 1- izdj.k la[;k 2- ue Jfed 3- Je U;k;ky; ds fu/kkZfjr jkf”k fnukad ls fnukad rd fu/kkZfjr jkf”k esa ls NksM+dj 6- nkok dh xbZ jkf”k vUrxZr /kkjk 33¼lh½¼1½ 7- fnukad ls 4- fnukad rd 5- 1- 42@22 Jh :dek uUn “kekZ 17-4-18 31-01-20 Vªsofyax o dUosal vyk- vfuf”pr 2- 43@22 Jh jkts”k xzksoj 18-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ [2026:RJ-JP:29] (16 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] 3- 44@22 Jh _rs”k xksre 17-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 4- 45@22 Jh “khysUnz dqekj 17-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 5- 46@22 Jh lanhi dqekor 10-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 6- 47@22 Jh ykyq jke ;kno 17-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 7- 48@22 Jh iznhi dqekor 25-5-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 8- 49@22 Jh fot; dqekj 25-5-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 9- 50@22 Jh nyhi dqekj 19-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 10- 51@22 Jh gseUr dqekj 19-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 11- 52@22 Jh jkds”k dqekj 25-2-18 31-01-20 ^^ ^^ 12- 53@22 Jh Jo.k dqekj 25-5-17 31-10-20 ^^ ^^ 13- 54@22 Jh /ku”;ke tkfxM+ 18-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 14- 55@22 Jh lanhi ikjhd 19-4-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 15- 56@22 Jh fd”kuohj ;kno 17-04-18 20-1-20 ^^ ^^ 16- 57@22 Jh lat; xksRre 08-05-18 31-01-20 ^^ ^^ 17- 58@22 Jh e`nqy “kekZ 25-05-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 18- 59@22 Jh lquhy dqekj “kekZ 18-04-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 19- 60@22 Jh txnh”k izlkn 25-05-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 20- 61@22 Jh egkohj izlkn 10-04-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ 21- 62@22 Jh ohjsUnz flag jktiwr 10-04-17 30-10-19 ^^ ^^ [2026:RJ-JP:29] (17 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] izkFkhZx.k us izkFkZuk i= esa Je U;k;ky; ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr cdk;k jkf”k dk Hkqxrku fu;kstd ds }kjk ugha fd;s tkus dk mYys[k dj olwyh djokdj Hkqxrku djokus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA tcfd nkos esa cdk;k gksuk vf/kd vof/k rd ds fy;s fd;k x;k gSA Jfed dk dFku gS fd Je U;k;ky; ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr jkf”k ds vuqlkj gh vkxs dh vof/k dh x.kuk dj Hkqxrku fnyk;k tkosA vizkFkhZ us fnukad 4-1-2023 dks tokc esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd%& 1- jkf”k dh ns;rk ds lEcU/k esa nLrkostksa o lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Je U;k;ky; ds fu/kkZj.k ds i'pkr olwyh dh tk ldrh gSA 2- Je U;k;ky; ds }kjk vkf”kd vof/k dh gh x.kuk dh xbZ gSA 3- Je U;k;ky; ds }kjk fofu”pr jkf”k dh gh ds vUrxZr olwyh dh tk ldrh gSA 4- iw.kZ vof/k dk osru o HkRrksa dk fu/kkZj.k Je U;k;ky; ds }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA mDr tokc o nkos ds lkFk vius dFku ds leFkZu esa nksuksa i{kksa us U;kf;d n`’VkUr Hkh layXu@is”k fd;s gSA i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k nksuksa i{kks dks lquus ds ckn Li’V gS fd izkFkhZ us vius nkos esa mDr vof/k ds ckn ds osru es Hkh de Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk crkrs gq;s vUrj jkf”k dh olwyh djokus fd izkFkZuk dh gSA tcfd /kkjk 33¼lh½¼1½ ds vUrxZr dsoy fu/kkZfjr jkf”k dh gh olwyh dh tk ldrh gSA lHkh Jfedksa ds lEcU/k esa ikfjr Je U;k;ky; ds vkns”k esa vof/k ,oa izn”kZ MCY;q&5 dh vof/k esa vlekurk@vLi’Vrk gS lHkh Jfed orZeku esa dk;Zjr gS ;g Hkh fu/kkZfjr ugha gSSA dqN Jfed lsok eqDr jgs gS] rks dqN fuyfEcr jgs gS] dqN lsokfuo`r gks pqds gSA ,sls esa osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkuk ekudj olwyh fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA lHkh Jfedksa dks viuk cdk;k iw.kZ:is.k fu/kkZj.k djok djus ds rRi”pkr gh olwyh dh dk;Zoikgh dh tk ldrh gSA lEiw.kZ nkfor jkf”k fdlh Hkh nkos esa Je U;k;ky; ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr ugha gSA izkFkhZx.k us Je U;k;ky; ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr jkf”k fd vof/k ls vf/kd vof/k dk nkok olwyh gsrq izLrqr fd;k gSA /kkjk 33¼lh½¼2½ ds vUrxZr iw.kZ fof/kd ifj{k.k ds mijkUr cdk;k jkf”k dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkrk gS tcfd izLrqr izdj.kksa esa cdk;k jkf”k dk fu/kkZj.k fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ls iw.kZ :is.k ugha fd;k x;k gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dk nkok vLohdkj fd;k tkdj izkFkhx.kksa ds izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkrs gSA vkns”k vkt U;k;ky; esa fnukad 26-4-23 dks lquk;s x;sA vfrfjDr Je vk;qDr- insu la;qDr “kklu lfpo¼Je½ jktLFkku]t;iqj 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon the judgment in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors., AIR 2002 [2026:RJ-JP:29] (18 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] SC 643 (1), submitted that non-approval of the order of dismissal or failure renders dismissal inoperative, and the employee becomes entitled to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of disapproval of the application. He further submitted that in the case of Kays Construction Company (private) Ltd. v. State of UP and others, AIR 1965 SC 1988, a Constitution Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court has held that ascertainment of dues involves mere arithmetical calculation, and there is no necessity to determine entitlement. He also submitted that the Labour Court has not only determined the due amount but directed payment within a period of 3 months, and as a consequence of non- payment, the respondent No.1 is duty-bound to make payment interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He further submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have deliberately and malafidely rejected the application preferred by the petitioners, hence they are arrayed as a respondent. 9. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, while referring to the judgments in the case of Namer Ali Choudhary Vs. The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors., MANU/SC/0232 1977, Fabril Gasosa and Ors. Vs.. Labour Commissioner and others, MANU/SC/10821997, Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. K. L. Kharbanda, MANU/SC/0365/1962; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vs. The Workmen and Ors. MANU/SC/0292 1974; U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. [2026:RJ-JP:29] (19 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] R. K. Shukla & Ors., MANU/SC/03331969; M/s. Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 813/2022, has submitted that the applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 33-C(1) of the Act of 1947 were rightly dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, and there is no illegality in the order. He further submitted that the Labour Court has neither determined any quantifiable amount, nor it has directed recovery of any specific amount. He further submitted that no amount is payable to workmen (petitioners), as no adjudication order was passed in favour of petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners were fully paid by the respondents, and without determination of specific amount as due, a recovery process cannot be instituted. He also referred to the order passed by the Labour Court and submitted that the Additional Commissioner is neither empowered to determine the due amount, nor he is authorized to adjudicate on the issue raised by the petitioners. He further submitted that the proceedings were rightly rejected by the Additional Labour Commissioner. 11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also opposed the personal attack on Respondent No. 3 and submitted that it is an official process and the judgment of the Labour Court, is itself ambiguous and respondent no.2 is not legally empowered to adjudicate upon entitlement and claim of dues. 12. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments of [2026:RJ-JP:29] (20 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to by Learned Counsel for both the parties. 13. Section 33(C) of the Act of 1947 is reproduced as under; 33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.—(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of 6 [Chapter VA or Chapter VB], the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer: Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; [within a period not exceeding three months] [Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in [2026:RJ-JP:29] (21 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.] (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the commissioner and other circumstances of the case. (4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1). (5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen. Explanation.—In this section “Labour Court” includes any court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State. 14. In case of Kays Construction Company (private) Ltd. v. State of UP and others (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which are analogous to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in particular Section 33C and observed that cognate section is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the recovery of money due to a workman under an award, and the second part deals with the benefit computable in terms of money. It further observed that the benefit contrast in two subsections between money due under the first subsection and the necessity [2026:RJ-JP:29] (22 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] of reckoning the benefit in terms of money before the benefit becomes money due under the second subsection, which shows that mere arithmetical calculation of the amount dues are not required to be dealt with under the elaborate procedure of the second subsection. 15. In case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. (supra), considering the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that non- approval of the order of dismissal or failure to make an application under Section 33(2)(b) for seeking approval renders the dismissal inoperative, and it becomes ineffective from the date it was passed. The employee becomes entitled to wages from the date of dismissal till the date of disapproval of the application. There is no need of a separate or specific order for reinstatement. 16. In case of Namer Ali Choudhary Vs. The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 and observed that the first part is for a money claim simpliciter, and the second part is for computing, in terms of money, any benefit where a workman is entitled to receive any money from the employer and any question arises as to the amount of money due, such dispute may be decided by the Labour Court. 17. In case of Febril Gasosa and Ors. Vs.. Labour Commissioner and others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions under Section 33C of the Act of 1947 as being in the nature of execution proceedings designed to recover the dues of the workman. The legislature has provided a [2026:RJ-JP:29] (23 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] speedy remedy to the workman to have the benefits of a settlement or award, which are due to them and are capable of being computed in terms of money, recovered through proceedings under the said provisions. The distinction between subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Section 33C of the Act lies mainly in the procedural aspect and not in any substantive right of the workman as conferred by these provisions. 18. In case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. K. L. Kharbanda (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947, interpreted the words used therein, and observed that where the amount due to a workman is not stated in the award itself and there is a dispute as to its calculation, subsection (2) will apply, and the workman would be entitled to apply thereunder to have the amount computed, provided he is entitled to a benefit, whether monetary or non-monetary, which is capable of being computed in terms of money. 19. In case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vs. The Workmen and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a discharged workman can obtain relief by way of Section 10 of the Act of 1947 and not by an application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 claiming computation of the benefit on the basis that the discharge being unlawful, his services must be deemed to be continuous and uninterrupted. 20. In case of U.P. Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. R. K. Shukla & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of retrenchment and entitlement in light of the [2026:RJ-JP:29] (24 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] provisions under Section 33(2) of the Act of 1947. In case of M/s. Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Ors., (supra), after considering the case of a workman, a conclusion has been drawn that it was beyond the scope of the Labour Court. In case of D.N. Krishnappa Vs. Deputy General Manager, (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the jurisdiction of Section 33(2) cannot be invoked in case of a dispute about employment. 21. Here, in the present case, the material on record clearly indicates that each of the petitioners filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, and the same has been decided in favour of the petitioner(s). The order has been passed after considering the defence and objections of Respondent No. 1. The order dated 13- 07-2022 indicates that the Labour Court has not only considered the order of termination passed against the petitioner(s) but has also referred to an award of the Labour Court, whereby the order of termination or dismissal was not approved. The judgment in case ofJaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. (supra), clearly reflects that the dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was passed and the employee becomes entitled to wages from the date of dismissal. 22. The Labour Court, after considering the application, has computed the amount and directed Respondent No. 1 to make payment within three months, failing which Respondent No. 1 was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The computation has already been completed by the Labour Court in its order, and on the basis of the due drawn statement, (Ex. W-5), [2026:RJ-JP:29] (25 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] the Labour Court has directed Respondent No. 1 to make payment within three months. The Labour Court has also directed that the amount already paid by the Respondent No.1 shall be adjusted towards the dues. 23. The order of the Labour Court from one of the files is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 20- izkFkhZ dk ;g izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk&33lh&2 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e fo#) vizkFkhZ Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vizkFkhZ dks vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 25-5-2017 ls vDVwcj 2019 rd dh vof/k ds lEiw.kZ osru] HkRrs o vU; ns; ykHkksa dh jkf”k ¼Vªsofyax ,.M dUoSa”k vykmUl dks NksM+dj½ rFkk izkFkhZ ds fuyEcudky ds iw.kZ osru dh jkf”k ¼Vªsofyax ,.M dUoSa”k vykmUl dks NksM+dj½ dh lax.kuk izdj.k esa izLrqr M~;wMªku स्टेटेमेंटे izn”kZ MCY;w-5 ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds lsok vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj dj izkFkhZ dks fu;ekuqlkj Hkqxrku djsaA izkFkhZ dks fuyEcu dky esa tks jkf”k dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gS o jkf”k] izkFkhZ dks fuyEcudky esa fn;s tkus okys lEiw.kZ osru o HkRrksa dh jkf”k esa ls lek;ksftr dh tk ldsxhA izkFkhZ dks mDr leLr jkf”k dh vnk;xh rhu ekg esa dh tkosA rhu ekg esa mDr leLr jkf”k;ksa dh vnk;xh ugha djus dh lwjr esa izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ls vkns”k fnukad ls 12 izfr”kr okf’kZd nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA 24. The material on record clearly indicates that Respondent No. 1 has neither challenged the order passed under Section 33C(2) nor raised any objection regarding the determination and computation of benefits, or entitlement of the petitioner(s). However, the counsel for Respondent No. 1 has now relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to canvass the argument that the Labour Court was not competent to determine or compute the benefits, as the petitioner(s) were not in the employment of Respondent No. 1. Unless the order passed under Section 33C(2) [2026:RJ-JP:29] (26 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] of the Act of 1947 by the Labour Court is challenged and until stayed or set aside by the High Court, the Labour Commissioner is duty bound to issue a recovery certificate so that the amount due may be recovered in compliance of the order. The Additional Labour Commissioner or the Labour Commissioner, or any other authority, has no power to deviate from the directions of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. The Additional Commissioner has committed a serious error while pointing out a fault in the order of the Labour Court, as he is a subordinate to the adjudicatory authority when he is required to execute an award, by issuing a recovery certificate. 25. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner clearly indicates that, without assigning any reasons, he has refused to recover the legal dues of the petitioners. The act of refusal to execute a valid order without assigning good reasons constitutes wilful disobedience and attracts disciplinary action, though it is a past event. It has been brought on record that soon after the order the Additional Commissioner (Respondent No.3) has superannuated. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner clearly indicate that either he favoured Respondent No. 1 or acted in an arbitrary manner. Whatever be the case, justice has suffered and the recovery process was stalled, resulting in loss to the petitioners. 26. In the instant case, after the determination of entitlement, computation, of specific dues as per Annexure W-5, the petitioner(s) filed an application for recovery, and the Labour Commissioner or the Additional Labour Commissioner was under [2026:RJ-JP:29] (27 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] an obligation to issue a recovery certificate and ensure recovery as per the order of the Labour Court, thus, no adjudication was required by the Additional Commissioner; rather, on the basis of statement Exhibit W-5, he has to calculate interest and thereafter issue recovery certificate or recovery warrant against Respondent No. 1, as Respondent No. 1 failed to deposit the due amount as per the order of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947. The Labour Commissioner or the Additional Labour Commissioner was not required to adjudicate upon any issue, as adjudication had already been done by the Labour Court and the order had not been challenged by Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the order dated 26-04-2023 is not only arbitrary but also illegal and is liable to be quashed. 27. The application under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 was filed before the Labour Court, and on the basis of the statements submitted by each of the petitioners in their computation, the Labour Court ruled on the entitlement and computed the money due on the basis of statement Ex. W-5, filed by the workmen. The issue of retrenchment, termination, or reinstatement was not a subject matter required to be considered by the Labour Commissioner or the Additional Labour Commissioner. This Court has only considered issue arising after dismissal of the application by the Additional Commissioner on 26-04- 2023, therefore, the judgments relied upon by Respondent No. 1 are not applicable in the present case to support the defence of Respondent No. 1. Thus, these writ petitions are liable to be allowed. 28. These writ petitions filed by petitioners are allowed and order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum- [2026:RJ-JP:29] (28 of 28) [CW-12108/2024] Joint Secretary (Labour), Rajasthan, Jaipur qua petitioner(s) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back (remand) to the Labour Commissioner for realization of dues under Section 33C(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with following directions: i. After receipt of copy of the order, all the matters shall be re- registered under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947; ii. After registration of matter, an opportunity for deposit of due payments (updated dues with interest, if any) be granted to respondent no.1 and if he fails to deposit, the Labour Commissioner shall proceed to issue a process as provided under the law; iii. In case petitioner(s) file an application under Section 29 of the Act of 1947, for prosecution, the Labour Commissioner shall proceed to examine and decide the matter for prosecution; iv. Needless to say that the recovery process be concluded as early as possible preferably within six months from date of receipt of copy of this order; v. The petitioners and respondent no.1 are directed to appear before the Labour Commissioner on 19.01.2026. 29. With aforesaid, the writ petitions and misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /282-301