Unpleaded objections to Section 33C(2) entitlement cannot be raised for the first time in writ proceedings.

The respondent-employee joined the petitioner’s service on 10 December 1984 and was terminated on 7 January 1987.

In reference proceedings, the Labour Court directed his reinstatement by award dated 29 September 1997.

The petitioner’s challenge to that award in Special Civil Application No. 7483 of 1998 was dismissed.

Subsequently, in Special Civil Application No. 5417 of 2008, the High Court directed compliance with the reinstatement award, pursuant to which the respondent was reinstated on 14 August 2008.

After his retirement, the respondent filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming a difference in wages of Rs.4,23,987, with interest, for the period from 14 August 2008 to 31 October 2014.

The Labour Court, Mehsana, allowed the application on 19 September 2025.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable in the absence of a separately adjudicated or pre-existing right to the claimed difference in wages.

Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to determine the respondent’s monetary claim under Section 33C(2) when the petitioner had not raised, before the Labour Court, any specific dispute regarding the maintainability of the application or the existence of the respondent’s pre-existing right.

Whether the decision in Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, (2022) 5 SCC 629, required interference with the Labour Court’s order.

Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to decide questions concerning the amount of money due to a workman or the monetary computation of a benefit to which the workman is entitled; it is ordinarily a provision for computation and recovery of an existing entitlement, rather than for adjudicating an entirely new entitlement.

The Court relied on Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, (2022) 5 SCC 629, which holds that the Labour Court cannot grant relief under Section 33C(2) without adjudicating a foundational dispute concerning entitlement or the basis of the workman’s claim.

However, where the employer does not raise such a jurisdictional or entitlement dispute before the Labour Court, it cannot ordinarily introduce that contention for the first time in a writ petition, particularly where the employee had no opportunity to meet it.

The High Court held that the respondent’s reinstatement had already been ordered in the earlier reference proceedings and had attained finality after dismissal of the petitioner’s challenge.

The respondent was thereafter reinstated pursuant to the High Court’s directions, providing the factual basis for his claim to wage differences.

Before the Labour Court, the petitioner did not specifically contest the maintainability of the Section 33C(2) application or deny the existence of a pre-existing right.

The respondent’s evidence remained unchallenged, the petitioner did not file examination-in-chief, and the calculation statement accompanying the application was not disputed.

The Court distinguished Bombay Chemical Industries because that case involved an express dispute regarding the employer–employee relationship and the absence of an adjudicated entitlement, whereas no comparable dispute was raised in the present proceedings.

Permitting the petitioner to raise the objection for the first time in writ proceedings would cause prejudice to the respondent, who had not been given an opportunity to address it before the Labour Court.

The reliance on Bombay Chemical Industries was held to be misplaced.

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the petitioner was granted three weeks to comply with the Labour Court’s order and award dated 19 September 2025.