Section 33-C(2) permits wage claims for delayed compliance with an unstayed reinstatement award.

The workmen had been terminated and, following references to the Labour Court, received awards directing reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority; back wages up to the date of the awards were denied.

Although the awards were not stayed, the workmen were re-engaged only later, after execution proceedings had been initiated.

They then sought wages for the period between the awards and their re-engagement under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court allowed the applications, quantified the amounts and awarded interest at 6% per annum.

The learned Single Judge upheld those orders, and the State appealed, contesting the maintainability of the Section 33-C(2) applications.

1. Whether an application under Section 33-C(2) was maintainable to compute and recover wages for the period between an award of reinstatement and the workman’s eventual re-engagement

2. Whether the workmen could claim those wages where the awards had denied back wages, but the reinstatement awards had not been stayed and the State delayed implementation

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act permits the Labour Court to determine the amount due in respect of a pre-existing right or benefit capable of monetary computation; it does not confer jurisdiction to adjudicate a fresh entitlement that has not already been established.

Under Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, the Labour Court’s role is analogous to that of an executing court, including interpreting the award or settlement on which the claim rests.

State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Debey distinguishes a pre-existing right from a claim requiring fresh adjudication, and cautions that reinstatement alone does not imply an award of back wages where they were not granted.

The Court also relied on D.N. Krishnappa v. Deputy Manager, distinguishing Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner where the relevant claim was already adjudicated.

It further referred to its decision in The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Cement Corporation of India v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the maintainability of Section 33-C(2) proceedings where the claim is ripe for execution.

The Court treated the claims as concerning the period after the reinstatement awards, not as applications to obtain back wages for the earlier period that the awards had expressly denied.

The awards directed immediate reinstatement, remained unstayed, and had survived the State’s challenges.

On that basis, the Court regarded the workmen’s claims for wages during the State’s delay in implementing reinstatement as flowing from an existing adjudicated right, with only the amounts requiring computation under Section 33-C(2).

The State could not rely on the absence of actual work or a Section 17-B application to avoid liability, since the awards were not stayed and the workmen were kept from joining until re-engagement was permitted.

It dismissed all four appeals, leaving in place the Labour Court’s quantified awards, including interest at 6% per annum.