Anil Dev Singh, C.J. - (1.) The appellant, on 28.9.1987, moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court on the ground that though he was entitled to increments while he was serving as Patwari with the respondents he was denied the same. The Labour Court being of the view that the matter did not fall within its jurisdiction and the appellant could have moved the Service Tribunal to ventilate his grievance, rejected the application. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court the appellant filed a writ petition on 1.11.1988. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 1.7.1997. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable inasmuch as the entitlement of the appellant had first to be established and, thereafter, the benefit could be computed. Since the appellant straight away filed the application under Section 33C(2) without resorting to the proper remedy of filing a claim for establishing the right to receive increments, the application under Section 33C(2) was not maintainable. The learned Single Judge while taking this view relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Another, (1995) 1 SCC 235 wherein the Supreme Court held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to first decide the workman's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33C(2) of the Act. It also observed that it is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.
(2.) We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single judge.
(3.) In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. It will, however, be open to the appellant to approach the concerned Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. Appeal Dismissed - Decision of Single Judge Upheld.;