Section 33C(2) is unavailable where entitlement depends on establishing a disputed right for the first time.

The workman applied under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming ₹4,06,184 in legal dues.

He alleged that he had worked as a driver from 2 February 2011 on a salary of ₹10,000 per month, but received only ₹2,500, with the balance to be adjusted against the management’s promised transfer of a 25-square-yard plot.

The management denied the employment terms and the alleged promise, and asserted that no prior settlement or adjudication established the claimed entitlement.

The Labour Court dismissed the application as not maintainable; the workman challenged that order in the High Court.

Whether the workman’s claim was maintainable under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act where the alleged employment terms and entitlement were disputed and unsupported by documents evidencing service conditions.

Whether the principle in Jeet Lal Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV permitted the Labour Court to determine the claim under Section 33-C despite the management’s denial.

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides a mechanism for computing money or benefits due to a workman on the basis of a pre-existing right; it does not empower the Labour Court to adjudicate an entitlement for the first time.

Under Jeet Lal Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 277, that pre-existing right may arise from an earlier adjudication, a settlement, or recognised service conditions.

Where entitlement is established and the dispute concerns computation or an incidental question, the Labour Court may proceed under Section 33-C(2); where the right itself requires initial adjudication, the appropriate course is a reference under Section 10.

The Court accepted that a pre-existing right under established service conditions may support a Section 33-C(2) application even without a prior settlement or adjudication, and that an employer’s denial alone does not defeat jurisdiction.

But here, the workman produced neither an appointment letter nor documents establishing the asserted service conditions, while the management categorically denied the alleged employment terms and promise.

The claim therefore did not establish the recognised, pre-existing entitlement required for proceedings under Section 33-C.

It disposed of the petition without examining the merits of the underlying claim and stated that any recourse under Section 10 would be considered on its own merits.