1 CGHC010272462024 2026:CGHC:32281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 183 of 2024 * - G. H. Khan S/o Jamal Khan Aged About 70 Years R/o Ambadas Pan Bhandar, Near Kaji House Kumhari Sanjay Nagar, Kumhari, Post Office Kumhari Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - M/s M.P. Steel And Fabricators Chandinids, Tatibandh, Raipur Through Its Partner Shri Baljeet Singh Gill S/o Sardar Kartar Singh Gill, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Dixit Building Mohdapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Presiding Officer Labour Court Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.(i) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. 10.(ii) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased the order to release the payment by the respondent no. 1 as claim by the petitioner according to the schedule as annexed with the application U/s. 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputed Act, in the interest of justice. 10.(iii) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.28 17:29:00 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Labour Court in Case No. 18/ID Act/2012/Claim dated 27.02.2023, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 33 C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’) for recovery of Rs.5,27,977.71 has been rejected. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was an employee working under the respondent No.1 herein, and his services were terminated vide order dated 28.01.1985. The petitioner approached the concerned Labour Court and award was passed on 21.03.1985 in his favour and the respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages. It appears that the respondent No. 1 did not challenge the said award and it attained finality. The petitioner moved an application under Section 33 C (2) of the ID Act claiming therein arrears of back wages from January 1982 till 31st March 2009 to the tune of Rs.5,27,977.72. The matter was contested between the parties and finally the learned Labour Court rejected the application moved by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim by adducing relevant documents. It is also observed that the petitioner did not submit any calculation chart etc. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the concerned Labour Court was under obligation to compute the amount of arrears of back wages according to the provisions of Section 33 C (2) of the ID Act. He would contend that the order passed by the learned Labour Court is bad-in-law and may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would oppose. He would contend that in absence of the relevant documents, it was not possible for the learned Labour Court to 3 compute the amount of back wages. He would further submit that in the award dated 21.03.1985, there was no direction to pay a certain amount to the workman and therefore, the provisions of Section 33 C of ID Act would not attract and the learned Labour Court rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Section 33 C of the ID Act reads 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 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 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 4 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 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.” 8. Bare reading of above quoted provisions would make it clear that a workman may recover money due from an employer on account of settlement or an award. The sub-section (2) of Section 33C states that where a workman is entitled to receive money from employer which is capable of being computed in terms of money, such amount or such issue has to be decided by the concerned Labour Court as may be 5 specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within period of three months and such period can be extended by the Labour Court. 9. In the present case, the learned Labour Court rejected the application moved by the petitioner assigning reasons that the petitioner failed to submit relevant documents, whereas copy of award was placed before the learned Labour Court, wherein order of reinstatement with back wages was passed in favour of workman. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court appears to be erroneous and is hereby quashed. 10. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Labour Court to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 33C of the ID Act, 1947. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 27th August, 2026. 12. The record of the case be sent forthwith to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti