- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE case comes up before this Court after. the application of the appellant was rejected by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the learned Single Judge has held as under: "This writ application has been filed against Annexure -3, judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in which it has been stated that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court provision of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, only the settlement of an award can be enforced. I find no illegality in the award and accordingly, the application is dismissed without having any merit. However, petitioner, so like, may raise separate industrial dispute for computing his disputed working Sunday wages and Holidays Wages." The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant's case is based on Wage Board Agreement and there was no question of any dispute being raised because it was a settled proposition by the Wage Board Agreement. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the settlement before the Labour Court, the appellant has stated that his case is based neither on any agreement nor settlement. That being the evidence of the appellant himself the mere aspect of calculation cannot be said to be available because the appellant himself has admitted before the Labour Court that there is no settlement or award of which he is making the claim.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, this 'Court feels that the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act had rightly been rejected. If the appellant has any claim, he has rightful remedy for raising a dispute before the appropriate authority. It is also available on record that an application to that effect has already been moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad and the matter is said to be pending.;