- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 23.2.2013 whereby, the application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed, the petitioner-M/s. BCCL has approached this Court. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent-employee was appointed on 2.1.1972 and he submitted his application under the VRS Scheme on 31.3.2001. It is further stated that the respondent-employee rendered services for 29 years, 2 months and 29 days and thus, he was entitled for ex-gratia payment of 1 1/2 months for each completed year of service or monthly wages at the time of retirement multiplied by balance number of months of service. It is stated that the respondent-employee was entitled for monetary benefit of 43 and 1/2 months only and he was paid terminal benefit for 702 days. Since the respondent-employee was not paid the due amount, he filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing notice to the petitioner, the application dated 21.8.2012 under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed. An application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be maintained only when either the claim of the workman is admitted by the employer or there is an award in which claim of the workman has been adjudicated. In the present case neither of these two conditions is satisfied, yet the application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been allowed by the Labour Court and therefore, order dated 23.2.2013 is liable to be set aside.
(2.) As against the above, the learned Counsel for the respondent-employee opposes the writ petition and submits that inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear in the proceeding of MJ Case No. 54 of 2012 and therefore, at this stage, it cannot raise a grievance that order dated 23.2.2013 has been passed in its absence.
(3.) As noticed above, in the writ petition it has been admitted by the petitioner that the respondent-employee was employed by the petitioner in service on 2.1.1972 and he rendered services for more than 29 years. It is further admitted by the petitioner that the respondent-employee was entitled to receive wages as per VRS. In U.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Birendra Bhandari, 2006 111 FLR 393 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that "the benefit which can be enforced under section 33-C(2) is a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right.;