1. Respondent Paras Ram was appointed as a Beldar in the Beas Satluj Link Project Sundernagar on November 18, 1972. Consequent upon reduction in staff strength, he was discharged from service on January 28, 1978. He was re-appointed as Gardener on November 8, 1978. At the time of his initial appointment in the year 1972 respondent by way of an affidavit had given his date of birth as November 30, 1937. On the basis of some complaint received as to the date of birth of the respondent, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent. During such inquiry the respondent was found to have been born on July 1,1921 and that a false affidavit was submitted by him as to his date of birth. The respondent was, therefore, retired from service with effect from June 30, 1981 on May 3, 1993. The respondent assailed the order of the petitioners retiring him from service by way of a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 158of 1993. Such suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class (1) Mandi on May 1, 1996 vide judgment Annexure P-4.

2. The respondent went up in appeal against the dismissal of his suit before the learned District Judge, Mandi. A compromise was arrived at between the parties before the learned District Judge on December 16, 1997. The appeal was, therefore, disposed of in terms of the compromise. The order passed on compromise (Annexure P-5) reads:

"On the efforts made by this Court, the parties have reconciled the dispute. It is agreed to between the parties that the appellant-plaintiff Paras Ram shall apply to the respondents for the grant of retirement benefits within one week from today. The respondents shall render all assistance in filling up the necessary forms for that purpose and all such benefits as admissible under rules shall be granted to the appellant, within two months, from the date of such application.

Learned Counsel for the appellant pleads that the appellant is entitled to pension under the rules. So far that aspect of the case is concerned, the appellant shall be at liberty to move to the respondents for the grant of pension, if admissible, the appeal is accordingly disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. Decree sheet be prepared. File after completion be consigned to the Record Room."

3. In pursuance of the judgment passed by the learned District Judge on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, following payments were made to the respondent by the petitioners:

(a) Rs. 19,601 on account of General Provident Fund on March 12, 1998;

(b) Three days salary on May 4, 1998;

(c) Rs. 527 towards G.I.S. on November 20, 1998; and

(d) Arrears of ADA on October 25, 1998.

4. The claim as to pension of the respondent was rejected on the ground that the respondent stood retired on June 30, 1981 and service rendered by him beyond that period was by way of deceit and that pension scheme was not applicable to the employees of the petitioners in the year 1981.

5. The respondent on September 22, 1999 approached the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short: the Act) pleading as under:

"That in pursuance of the order of learned District Judge, Mandi, the applicant accordingly applied to the respondents to provide him all necessary service benefits like arrears of salary, gratuity, pension, G.P. Fund etc. was given his G.P. Fund from which also the respondent No. 4 has deducted Rs. 3,000 as quarter allowance from poor applicant, which is also wrong and illegal.

That the applicant requested the respondents time and again to provide him all the necessary service benefits as aforesaid, but they were making lame excuses and uptill now, the applicant has not been provided due benefits, despite his repeated requests. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that as submitted above, the applicant may very kindly be granted all dues of service benefits as aforesaid, for which the applicant shall ever pray."

6. The petitioners while resisting the application made by the respondent pleaded that all admissible dues stood paid to him. A sum of Rs. 3,300 was deducted from the amount of General Provident Fund towards rent of the official accommodation provided to the respondent for the period of his overstay after retirement as per the rules. It was further pleaded that the respondent was not entitled to pension and as such his claim was rejected.

7. The learned Labour Court proceeded to hold that the order retiring the respondent from service was bad and illegal and accordingly directed to disburse the pensionary and other retiral benefits to the respondent within 40 days.

8. The award dated December 29, 1999 of the learned Labour Court has been assailed by the petitioners by way of the present writ petition. It has been contended that the petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was not maintainable since there was neither earlier determination nor adjudication of the claim nor entitlement of the workman nor there has been any settlement in this regard nor the case fell under Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B of the Act. It was further contended that the learned Labour Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act by holding that the order retiring the respondent from service was bad and illegal.

9. Section 33-C(2) of the Act, insofar as it is material for the purpose of the present case, reads:

"(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made in this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government (within a period not exceeding three months):

(Provided that where the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period by such further period as he may think fit)."

10. Rule 66 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1974 as framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh provides:

"(1) Where any money is due from an employer to a workman or a group of workmen under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A, the workmen or the group of workmen, as the case may apply in Form 'M' for the recovery of the money due:

Provided that in the case of a person authorized in writing by the workman, or in the case of the death of the workman, the assignee or the heir of the deceased workman, the application shall be made in Form 'N' (2) Where any workman or a group of workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money, or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the workman or the group of workmen, as the case may be, may apply to the specified Labour Court in Form 'C' for the determination of the amount due or as the case may be, the amount at which such benefit should be computed."

11. Dealing with the scope and ambit of Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr., 1995 (1) SCC 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395, has held:

"Where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of Executing Court's power to interpret a decree for the purpose of its execution. The power of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) extends to interpretation of the Award or settlement on which the workmen's right rests."

12. Again in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3734 : 2000 (1) SCC 73 : 2000-II-LLJ-1660, reiterating the above principle, the Supreme Court held at pp. 1662 & 1663 of LLJ:

"Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of computation in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is necessarily a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. The difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other; hand is vital. The former falls within the jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33-C(2) of the Act while the latter does not..........."

13. In the present case, there has neither been a settlement nor there is an award in favour of the respondent which is sought to be enforced under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

14. Admittedly, the compromise judgment; and decree of the learned District Judge is sought to be enforced. Such judgment and decree, if at all enforceable, has to be enforced under Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure by approaching the Civil Court concerned. Labour Court in exercise; of powers under Section 33-C(2) of the Act has no power or jurisdiction to enforce the decree of a Civil Court.

15. Besides, it is pertinent to note that the Labour Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction while acting under Section 33-C(2) of the Act in declaring and holding the order retiring the respondent from service as bad and illegal. The Labour Court could not have gone into such question while dealing with an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Admittedly, there was no reference before it on the question whether order retiring the respondent from service was bad and illegal.

16. By entering into a settlement with the petitioners in appeal before the learned District Judge, the respondent, in fact, had accepted his retirement as ordered by the petitioners and it was on this basis that the learned District Judge had directed that all the retiral benefits as admissible may be paid to the respondents. The question as to entitlement of the respondent to pension was not gone into and a liberty was given to the respondent to approach the petitioners for the grant of pension, if admissible.

17. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed. The impugned award dated December 29, 1999 of the learned Labour Court (Annexure P-l) is quashed and set aside.

18. Parties are left to bear their own costs.