Adjudication of disputed facts regarding wages exceeds the scope of execution powers under Section 33C(2).

The Saram Co-operative Spinning Mill (Petitioner) was closed on 13.01.1999 without following the statutory procedures prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In 2002, the Management offered a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), which 98% of workers accepted; however, the respondent-workmen refused and filed Claim Petitions in 2013 before the Labour Court, Cuddalore.

The Labour Court awarded closure compensation calculated at a last drawn wage of Rs. 4,500/-, 7.5% interest, and an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The Management challenged these orders via Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.541 of 2023 etc.), while other workers (W.P.Nos.23299 of 2025 etc.) challenged the dismissal of their claims due to lack of proof of continuous service.

1. Whether the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by adjudicating disputed questions of fact regarding the last drawn wage.

2. Whether the claims were barred by latches and delay since they were filed 17 years after the closure of the mill.

3. Whether workmen are entitled to closure compensation under Section 25-FFF without proof of one year of continuous service.

The court applied Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which functions as an execution proceeding and requires a "pre-existing right" rather than an adjudication of fresh claims.

It relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, establishing that disputed claims cannot be adjudicated under Section 33-C(2).

Section 25-FFF read with Section 25-F of the Act mandates that closure compensation is only payable to workmen who have been in "continuous service for not less than one year" prior to closure.

The High Court found that the Labour Court overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) by "deeming" the last drawn wage to be Rs. 4,500/- despite the Management’s specific contention that wages ranged between Rs. 3,900 and Rs. 4,100.

The Court held that since the wage amount was a contested fact, the Labour Court should have restricted itself to the undisputed admitted wages.

The High Court upheld the closure date of 13.01.1999 and the entitlement to compensation because the mandatory procedure for closure was admittedly not followed.

For the 2025 batch of petitions, the Court noted that the workmen failed to provide any proof of continuous service for one year prior to closure, which is a mandatory statutory precondition under Section 25-FFF/25-F.

The Court ordered the Management to pay the crystallized closure compensation plus an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (as voluntarily offered) with 9% interest from the date of the Labour Court's award.

The workmen's petitions (W.P.Nos.23299 of 2025 etc.) were dismissed as they failed to prove the one-year continuous service requirement.