SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6725 of 2011(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1249 of 2011). D/d. 24.9.2001.

Radhey Shyam Misra - Appellant

Versus

Union of India - Respondent

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Sections 33C(2) and 10(1)(c) - Reference - Redetermination of wages - When Labour Court already made order as to what wages should be, there was any need for Labour Court to direct appellant to approach other authorities - Similar mistake committed by High Court by not entertaining Writ Petition filed by appellant - Appeal allowed.

[Para 4]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ. :- Leave granted.

2. On a claim made under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in L.C.A. No.219/1987 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Pandu Nagar,Kanpur, U.P., the Labour Court made the following observations:

"So with this observation that his pay in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 was Rs. 1900/- p.m. as on 1-1-1986 and Rs. 1950/- p.m. as on 1.1.1987, I dismiss his application under section 33C(2) I.D.Act with further observation that he shall be at liberty to bring a fresh claim in respect of various heads of his claim mentioned in annexure B to the petition under section 33C(2) I.D.Act and wages if any due to him from 1.10.1985, after getting the point of his retirement age determined in proceedings under section 10(1)(C) I.D.Act or if he finally accepts 28.2.1987 as the date of his retirement."

3. So far as wages are concerned, the Labour Court has also dismissed the matter on the question as to the age of retirement. The Labour Court directed that he should approach the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10C of the Industrial Disputes Act and disposed of the matter. Again the appellant approached the Labour Court by filing an application being L.C.A. No. 143/1997. In that case it was noticed that the order made in L.C.A.No. 219/1987 had become final, however, directed the appellant to work out his rights further by approaching the authorities concerned and thereafter seeking for a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

We do not think when the Labour Court had already made an order as to what the wages should be, there was any need for the Labour Court to direct the appellant to approach the other authorities. Similar mistake has been committed by the High Court by not entertaining the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct the respondent to work out the wages of the appellant and pension as directed by the Labour Court in L.P.A. No. 219/1987 as extracted above. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

.