NAYUDU J:- This petition comes before us on an order of reference made by a Divi­sion Bench of this Court which is extracted below 27 11-1967 In this case the interpretation of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Dis­putes Act arises for consideration The conten­tion of Mr Bhattacharjee is that unless the Labom Court is specified by the State Govern­ment under this sun section, the Labour Court in question would not get jurisdiction to decide the matter whereas Mr Choudhuri contended that as there is only one Labotu Court in the whole State there is no need to specify the particular Court and that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter In support of this argument he places reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sudhindra Kumar Deb v State of Assam, AIR 1959 Assam I. It is contended by Mr Bhattacharjee that the observations made in that case are more or less obiter and need not be considered for the decision of this case. However, the pronouncement is fairly specific and clear in that decision We would, therefore, like the whole matter to be settled once for all by refer­ring the matter to a Full Bench. The matter will be heard by the C. J., Justice Sen and Jus­tice Pathak on 1st February, 1968. (Sd.) C. Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, Chief Justice. (Sd.) M. C. Pathak, Judge." (2) Two points arise for consideration in this reference: (1) Whether an application tot computation of a workman s entitlement under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') could be made to a Labour Court without the same having been specified by the State Government in regard to the dispute that is to be referred to under S. 33-C (2), and (2) whether the workman could refer the dispute under S. 33-C (2) directly to the Labour Court and not by an application to the State Government. (3) Before we consider these points, it would be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions of S 7 of the Act, which deals with Labour Courts, is as follows: "7. (3) Before we consider these points, it would be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions of S 7 of the Act, which deals with Labour Courts, is as follows: "7. (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matters speci­fied in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. The Second Schedule to the Act contains the list of matters, which tall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts. Section 33-C runs as fol­lows:- " 33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chap V-A, the workman may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. (2) Where any workman is entitled to re­ceive from the employer any benefit which U capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be deter­mined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-section (1). (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, it is so thinks fit. appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Com­missioner and other circumstances of the case." (4) It may be seen from the language of S. 33-C (2) that the amount which the workman is entitled to receive is to be determined by the Labour Court, which is specified by the State Government in this behalf. In other word, the Labour Court has got to be specifically mentioned and it should also be mentioned by the State Government that a particular matter which is referred to under Section 33-C (2) is to be determined by the Labour Court. Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Management of Socklatinga Tea Estate con­tends that the particular Labour Court was not specified, nor was the matter in regard to the dispute in this case mentioned by the Govern­ment in a reference to the Labour Court under sub-section (2) of Section 33-C. To this Mr. Choudhuri, the learned counsel for the work­man respondent No. 1 Shri N J. Korean, stated that as there has been only one Labour Court for the whole State of Assam, no particular specification is necessary and that all duties that could be performed by the Labour Court under the Act could be performed by that Labour Court, as that is the only Labour Court for the State. It may be that there has been only one Labour Court for the whole State. But that Labour Court, according to the sub-section, has got to be specified for performing this particular duty and no material has been placed be­fore us to show that any such specific earmark­ing of this duty has been made by the Govern­ment in regard to the one Labour Court, which was functioning in the State In view of the fact that the sub-section uses the word 'speci­fied' and also the words 'in this behalf, there can be no doubt that the insistence is on the specification as well as with reference to the particular subject-matter of dispute In the in­stant case, as it is not specified by the State Government in a reference that the Labour Court, which is the only Labour Court in the State of Assam, is entrusted with the duty of determining the amount payable to the work­man respondent No. 1, we feel that the Labour Court had acquired no jurisdiction to dispose of the matter under sub-section (2) of Section 33-C, simply on an application filed before by the respondent No. 1. It is possible" that there must be only one Labour Court and vet the State Government may not entrust certain matters to that Labour Court The whole object of the sub-section is to reserve the right to the State Government to specify the duty in the particular circumstances of the case, so that these condi­tions must be complied with before jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2 could be invoked (5) In this connection reliance has been placed by Mr Choudhuri. the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case ot AIR 1959 Assam I. That was no doubt a case under Sec­tion 33-C (2) of the Act But the facts are materially different, because in that case the ap­plication was made to the Labour Court func­tioning in the State by the State Government, so that the condition required by the sub section is fulfilled in that case and the only question that arose for determination was whether the cancellation or revocation of the notification to that case was valid or not In that context cer­tain observations appear to have been made which we consider are obiter and were not necessary for the determination of that case. The observations are to be found at page 3 of the report:- "Mr. Choudhury has further contended that even the first notification in that case was un­necessary because in Assam there is only one Labour Court and if that Labour Court could deal with the matter, no specification of the Labour Court was necessary Of course, sub-fee. (2) speaks of Government specifying the Labour Court to deal with the matter; never­theless, the statute confers jurisdiction on the Labour Court to act under sub-sec. (2) of S. 33 C and no other Tribunal. (2) speaks of Government specifying the Labour Court to deal with the matter; never­theless, the statute confers jurisdiction on the Labour Court to act under sub-sec. (2) of S. 33 C and no other Tribunal. It is admitted here that there is only one Labour Court and thus there Is substance in the argument that where there is only one Labour Court, apparently that Court alone will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter irrespective of any notification by Government It is only where there are a number of Labour Courts functioning in a State that specification of the particular Labour Court to take up the matter on the authorisation of Government may be necessary to avoid any conflict of jurisdiction between them; but where there is only one Court, no such conflict arises and that Court will have, on the terms of the statute itself, jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the parties and act under the section afore-said.” We consider, as already observed, that these observations are mere obiter and if they are to be regarded as making a statement of law on the subject, we respectfully disagree with these observations and hold that they do not lay down the correct law on the subject. (6) The next question to be considered is whether the application in this case could be made directly by the workman respondent No. 1 to the Labour Court, or whether an application should have been made by the workman to the State Government for the purpose of making a reference. In considering this question, it will be necessary to refer to Rule 65 of the Assam Industrial Disputes Rules. 1958, which runs as follows:- 'An application under S 33-C shall be delivered personally or forwarded by registered post in triplicate to the Secretary to the Government of Assam Labour Department. Shillong." It is clear from this rule that any application under Section 33-C(l) or Section 33-C (2), as both these sub-sections are covered by S 33-C, must be made to the Secretary to the State Gov­ernment of Assam, Labour Department Shillong. The importance of these rules and the necessity for complying with the same are clear from sub-section (2) of Section 33-C which says that the procedure under the sub-section is subject to any rules that have been made under this Act and these rules are 'the Assam Industrial Disputes Rules. The importance of these rules and the necessity for complying with the same are clear from sub-section (2) of Section 33-C which says that the procedure under the sub-section is subject to any rules that have been made under this Act and these rules are 'the Assam Industrial Disputes Rules. 1958 framed by the State Gov­ernment. It is contended by Mr Choudhuri that the qualifying clause subject to any rule that may be made under this Act should only be read in connection with the computation of the benefit and he accordingly contended that in computing the benefit the rules framed by the State Government would have to be followed. But this interpretation does not follow from the language of the rule. To our mind it would appear that whatever is done under that sub­section should be subject to any rules that may be made under the Act by the State Govern­ment, and as the operation of the sub-section in question is subject to the rules and as the rules framed provide that the application should b« made to the State Government, it follows that a direct application to the Labour Court by the workman is excluded This interpretation is accepted by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of 'Indian Iron and Steel Co Ltd. v. Treogi Nath, AIR 1964 Cal 102 , where their Lordships observed as follows:- "The jurisdiction of the Labour Courts if limited by the items specified in the second schedule and even with regard to these their powers are dormant so long as there is no refer­ence to them under Sec 10 (1) (b) 01 (c) of that Act. The only instance when they can exercise any power without specific reference by the Government seems to be under Sec 33 I ) and S. 33 (3) of the Act where it is open to a Labour Court to give permission in writing to an employer to take the steps mentioned in Cls. (a) and (b) of the said sub-sections. In my view. Section 7 (1) only enables the appropriate Government to assign certain func­tions to Labour Courts within the limits specified by the Act. (a) and (b) of the said sub-sections. In my view. Section 7 (1) only enables the appropriate Government to assign certain func­tions to Labour Courts within the limits specified by the Act. It seems reasonable to hold that Government can make use of the rule-making powers under Sec 38 of the Act for the pur­pose but nothing appears to have been done in that respect The expression as may be assign­ed to them under this Act in S. 7 (1) does not mean 'as they are competent to discharge under the Act' Before a function can be discharged there must be assignation under the Act." We are fully in agreement with these observa­tions. We further hold that the Labour Court is not like a Civil Court or a Court of general or residuary jurisdiction but a Court of specified jurisdiction enumerated by the terms of the-order of reference. It may be regarded as an ad hoc Court with an ad hoc jurisdiction to determine specified industrial disputes or mat­ters connected therewith It is certainly unlike an ordinary Court to which aggrieved parties may resort whenever they think it necessary to do so We are therefore, clearly of opinion that an application under Section 33-C (2) cannot be made directly by the workman but the application has to be made to the State Government. (7) It is contended by Mr Choudhuri that as the petitions had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, it would not be open to the petitioner to question the jurisdiction of the Labour Court In support of this contention he placed reliance on two single Bench decisions of the Madras High Courti (1) Maniiarghat Union Motor Services Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority AIR 1953 Mad 59 and (2) Suryn Rao v Board of Revenue- (Set­tlement of Estates), Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 472. But the answer is supplied by the deci­sion of the Supreme Court in the case of K.. Kanakarathamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 304 , where their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that whenever there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, the objection could be taken at any stage. At page 306 of the report their Lordships observed as follows:- "The proviso to sub-sec. (2) prescribes the time within which an application under sub-sec. (1) is to be made. At page 306 of the report their Lordships observed as follows:- "The proviso to sub-sec. (2) prescribes the time within which an application under sub-sec. (1) is to be made. Section 19 provides for the making of a reference by the Collector and specifies the matters which are to be comprised in that reference. Thus, the matter goes to the Court only upon a reference made by the Col­lector. It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. Section 21 restricts the scope of the proceedings before the Court to consideration of the con­tention of the persons affected by the objection. These provisions thus leave no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Court arises solely on the basis of a reference made to it. No doubt, the Land Acquisition Officer has made a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act but that reference was only in regard to the apportionment of the compensation amongst the vari­ous claimants Such a reference would certainly not invest the Court with the jurisdiction to con­sider a matter not directly connected with it." In that context their Lordships observed that as the jurisdiction is lacking from the inception, the objection could be entertained at any stage. Applying the reasoning of this decision to the facts of the instant case, we hold that as no reference has been made to the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2), the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to dispose of the matter in ques­tion In the circumstances we do not see any force in the contention raised by Mr Choudhuri that the question of jurisdiction could not be raised before us by the petitioner Mr. Choudhuri also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v P S Rajagopalan. Choudhuri also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v P S Rajagopalan. AIR 1964 SC 743 : 1963-2 Lab LJ 89 But that was a case arising under the rules framed by the Central Government, which apparently contem­plated a direct application to be made to the Labour Court and as the section itself is subject to the rules framed by the appropriate Government and the rules provided for such contin­gency, it was held that the application was competent As the rules framed by the State Government of Assam are quite different on the subject, this ruling cannot be held to apply to the facts of this case (8) In the light of the foregoing discussion the rule is made absolute and the petition is allowed. In the circumstances, however, we direct that each party shall bear their own costs Petition allowed