Section 33C(2) jurisdiction includes determining wage entitlements arising from service conditions despite employer’s denial.

The Respondent (workman) filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (“CGIT”).

He alleged that while posted at the Moradabad Division between 12.02.2007 and 19.10.2007, he was paid salary only for June 2007 despite reporting for duty

On 10.04.2023, the CGIT passed an award directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 97,067/- plus 6% interest

The Petitioner’s application for review/recall was dismissed on 10.06.2025

The Petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court, contending that Section 33C(2) proceedings are execution-oriented and cannot be used to adjudicate foundational disputes regarding "reporting for duty" or "no work no pay" principles, which required adjudication under Section 10 of the ID Act

1. Whether a claim for unpaid wages based on service conditions constitutes a "pre-existing right" capable of computation under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act

2. Whether the mere denial of a workman's entitlement by an employer ousts the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2)

3. Whether the CGIT's award of interest and the determination of wages was valid given the Petitioner’s failure to lead evidence or cross-examine the respondent

Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which allows a Labour Court to compute money or benefits a workman is "entitled to receive"

The precedent set in Jeet Lal Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Fourth Labour Court and Anr. (2000), which established that a "pre-existing right" can arise from three sources: (i) adjudication, (ii) settlement, or (iii) service conditions

A claim for wages for a period of service is based on the terms of employment/service conditions and does not necessarily require prior adjudication under Section 10

The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not barred simply because the employer disputes the claim; the court has the incidental power to determine if the right exists before computing the benefit

The court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the CGIT assumed an impermissible adjudicatory role.

Applying the principles from Jeet Lal Sharma, the court reasoned that since the Respondent was a regular employee on the Petitioner’s payroll, his claim for wages stemmed from established service conditions, qualifying as a pre-existing right

The court found that the Petitioner had virtually abandoned the proceedings before the CGIT by failing to cross-examine the workman or lead any documentary evidence to prove the workman’s absence or any departmental action taken against him

The workman's testimony remained unrebutted

The court emphasized that in determining maintainability under Section 33C(2), one must look at the claim set up in the application, and a mere plea of dispute by the employer does not strip the court of jurisdiction

The court held that the claim for unpaid salary based on service conditions fell within the ambit of Section 33C(2) and that the CGIT committed no jurisdictional error in computing the amount based on unrebutted evidence

The Petitioner’s failure to provide any record of departmental action or evidence of the workman's absence justified the CGIT's findings

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly