- (1.) BY this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 3.8.2011 passed by the Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer on an application moved under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947').
(2.) IT is stated that benefits computed since 1.7.1996 till 31.8.2008 are less than the minimum wages payable to the employee thus impugned order deserves to be set aside with a direction to the labour court to recompute the wages after taking into consideration the Minimum Wages Act and the rate of minimum wages prescribed by the State Government from time to time. I have considered the submission and perused record of the case. It is a case where an application under section 33-C(2) of the Act was filed for computation of benefits pursuant to the award earlier passed in favour of the petitioner. The said award was in regard to the termination of the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1996. Learned labour court adjudicated the dispute and decided it in favour of the petitioner. Therein, petitioner was made entitled to a sum of Rs.200/- per month for the intervening period starting from 1.7.1996 till 31.8.8.2008 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum while considering the application for computation of wages, learned labour court found that the sum as directed in the award has already been paid to the petitioner, accordingly, no amount remains payable. Since intervening period from the year 1996 to 2008 has to be regulated as per the earlier award passed by the labour court and which has not been challenged by the petitioner, computation of wages pursuant to the award cannot be different than directed therein. This is more so when application under section 33-C (2) of the Act is filed for computation of the benefit pursuant to the award. If, at all, the award provides wages at Rs.200/- per month and petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid, being the amount less than provided as minimum wages, challenge to the award should have been made, however, it has been admitted that no challenge was made. In the aforesaid background, impugned order passed by the labour court cannot be said to be illegal. At times, while adjudicating the matters of termination/ dismissal, awards are passed by the labour court holding termination/ dismissal to be illegal with a direction of reinstatement but denying the benefit of back wages. In the aforesaid case, one cannot maintain an application under section 33-C (2) of the Act to claim the wages of the intervening period if denied in the award. In the present matter, to whatever extent wages were allowed by the labour court in its earlier award, cannot be nullified in the proceedings under section 33-C(2) of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the period from the year 1996 to 2008 has to be regulated as per the terms of the award unless it is challenged and modified. Accordingly, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. ;