JUDGMENT - Deshpande D.B. J.-Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bhandara in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1970, the State Government has preferred this second appeal which arises out of the following facts. 2. Some 20 workers, who are respondents 2 to 21 in this second appeal sought for some relief under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the Second Labour Court at Nagpur presided over by Shri T. D. Patankar Judge and they got some relief through that Labour Court. After that award was made by the Labour Court, the State Government, which is the present appellant sought to recover that amount through its subordinate i. e. Naib-Tahsildar, Gondia. That is why the present respon- dent No. 1 who was plaintiff in the Trial Court filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara for a declaration that the order pass- ed by Shri T.D. Patankar presided over the Second Labour Court at Nagpur is without jurisdiction, null and void and that the recovery should not be made by the State Government on the strength of such order passed by that Labour Court. 3. The State Government was defendant No. 21 in the Trial Court. The State Government resisted the plaintiff's claim. It denied that no noti- fication authorising the Labour Court at Nagpur to deal with the application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was issued. It con- tended further that the Government had specified the Labour Court at Nagpur for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act and the notification number was given therein. Some other contentions were also raised. Defendants 1 to 19 also resisted plaintiff's claim and the defendant No. 20 was proceeded ex parte. 4. After considering the evidence before him, the learned Trial Judge held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try that suit. He rejected the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 20 was an independent contractor. However, he upheld the objection of the plaintiff that the order dated 12–6-1968 passed by Shri T. D. Patankar presiding over Second Labour Court was void, illegal and without jurisdiction. He rejected defendant's contention about limitation. He held that the suit was properly valued and that the Deputy Commissioner was not a necessary party to the suit. However, he upheld the objection of the plaintiff that the order dated 12–6-1968 passed by Shri T. D. Patankar presiding over Second Labour Court was void, illegal and without jurisdiction. He rejected defendant's contention about limitation. He held that the suit was properly valued and that the Deputy Commissioner was not a necessary party to the suit. Conse- quently, the learned Trial Judge gave a declaration that the order passed by Shri T. D. Patankar was null and void as the same was without jurisdiction and the learned Trial Judge restrained the State Government from proceed- ing with the recovery proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by this decision the State Government alone preferred Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1970 in the District Court at Bhandara. This appeal was heard by the learned Assistant Judge at Bhandara and the learned Assistant Judge agreed with the findings of the Trial Court that the order passed by Shri T. D. Patankarwas without juris-diction and consequently he dismissed the appeal with costs of respondent No. 1 alone. Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the State has filed this second appeal. 5. The reliefs sought for by respondents 2 to 21 were under sec-tion 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This section runs as follows: “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 under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government.” . It is, therefore, apparent that the matter has got to be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government. Therefore, it is incumbent that the Second Labour Court presided over by Shri T. D. Patankar ought to have been a Court specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government. It is apparent that the Notification on which the State Government has placed reliance has specified the Court presided over by Shri P. D. Kulkarni as the Court specified under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is apparent that the Notification on which the State Government has placed reliance has specified the Court presided over by Shri P. D. Kulkarni as the Court specified under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is an admitted fact that there is no such specific notification so far as the Court presided over by Shri T. D. Patankar is concerned. Therefore, Shri V. V. Naik urged that the Court of Shri T. D. Patankar i. e. Second Labour Court was constituted at Nagpur and according to Shri Naik, this by itself was sufficient to enable Shri T. D. Patankar to exercise powers under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A similar submission was made before the Supreme Court in (Treogi Nath v. Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd).1 but it was negatived by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the Courts which are specifically designated by the State Government alone can have jurisdiction to deal with the applications under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Now admittedly the Court of Shri T. D. Patankar is not a Court specified by the State Government and therefore, the order passed by Shri Patankar is without jurisdiction, null and void and therefore, the decision of the Court below is correct. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs of respondent No. 1 alone. * Appeal dismissed. -----