- (1.) THE challenge in writ proceedings here is to the impugned order of the Labour Court, Jullun-dur, of November 24, 1980, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') awarding to the respondent Dr. S. P. Tewari a sum of Rs. 3,770/on account of his claim for leave salary and pay in lieu of notice.
(2.) A reference to the material on record shows that one of the issues raised before the Labour Court was whether or not Dr. S. P. Tewari was a workman in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court proceeded lo give a finding on this issue, in favour of Dr. Tiwari and thereafter made an award in his favour in the sum mentioned earlier.
(3.) IT is well settled that the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act is indeed limited in that the right or the benefit which is sought be computed in proceedings thereunder must be an existing right, that is to say, a right already adjudicated upon or provided for. In other words, it is only an existing right that can constitute the founda-tion of a claim under Section 33 C (2) of the Act. This was so held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Paramjith Kaur (1992) (1) I. L. R. Pb. and Hr. 312, which in turn was founded upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. , v. The Workmen A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1604 and Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. , Ltd. v. Rames-war A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 218.;