Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) As all the writ petitions arise from the judgment dated December 9, 1996 passed by the Central Labour Court, Jaipur the same were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. The contextual facts depict that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the respondent workman. The learned labour court after appreciating the evidence and material on record including the award given by the National Industrial Disputes Tribunal on April 30, 1990 decided the application which is under challenge in all these writ petitions.
(2.) Mr. Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank vehemently canvassed that the application submitted by the respondent workman could not have been accepted. Reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. JT 1994(7) SC 476 and it was contended that the power of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act extends to interpretation of the award or settlement on which the workman's right rests, like executing court to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution, where the basis of the claim is referable to the award or settlement, but it does not extend to determination of the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim if there is no prior adjudication or recognisation of the same by the employer.
(3.) Mr. Amod Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman invited the attention of this Court towards the order dated 30.9.97 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5041/1997 preferred by the petitioner Bank against the same judgment dated December 9, 1996 of the Central Labour Court, Jaipur, by which order, the writ petition was dismissed. Therefore, Shri Kasliwal contends that a different view cannot be taken in these writ petitions which impugn the same order of the Central Labour Court, Jaipur. Copy of the order dated September, 1997 passed in the aforesaid writ petition was shown to me. This Court in the said order observed that the petition filed by the petitioner Bank was not properly drafted but taking into consideration the reply to the stay application filed by the workman, this Court proceeded to decide the writ petition and observed that in view of the report of the working group which has been accepted by the Central Government and necessary directions were issued vide circular dated March 20, 1993, the contention of the petitioner Bank was not found acceptable.;