Leila Seth, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, seeks the quashing of the order dated 18th October, 1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi in LCA No. 188/83. ( 2 ) THERE are 47 writ petitions and though the dates and amounts claimed may differ, the points in issue are the same. The impugned order has been passed in each case by Mr. 0. P. Singla and his conclusions and reasons for arriving at them are identical. Consequently, this judgment will cover all the cases. ( 3 ) THE petitioner started working with the Northern Railway on 26th September, 1977. "was employed as a casual labourer underchief Singal and Telecommunication Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway (to be REFERRED TO to hereinafter in short as "cste (Con)" ). He was employed for more than 120 days and consequently claimed Rs. 575. 15p as balance payment for the period 28th January, 1978 to 28th March, 1978 on the basis of the scale rate of Rs. 196-232 instead of daily rate wages paid to him. According to him he was entitled to be treated as a temporary workman on completion of 120 days work and to emoluments on that basis. His stand is that he was transferred from place to place and was a casual labourer on open line and not a casual labourer on a project. ( 4 ) THE management. contested his claim and asserted that be was working since 26th September, 1977 at Rs. 4. 50 per day as acasual khalasi on a construction project and was not entitled to the above mentioned money. ( 5 ) MR. O. P. Singla, who heard the matter, by the impugned order allowed the claim of the workman. He held that the order dated 30th August/3rd September, 1974 by which the CSTE (Con) declared that "all the works under CSTE (C) shall be deemed as PROJECTS" was issued "to escape financial liability" at the cost of "being unfair to casual labour" who are working on construction and not employed on projects, and in the teeth of the Railway Board s directions. Afteradverting to the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Robert D souza v. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another, AIR 1982 SC 854 , he held that every construction work is not a project and that the CSTE s (Con) declaration that all works under it would be deemed to be projects was unjustified and this could not be done without consideration of the facts. ( 6 ) MS. Rachna Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, made three submissions. First, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in determining the rights of parties in a matter under section 33c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after REFERRED TO to as the "act" ). ( 7 ) SECONDLY, the Labour Court was not justified in negativing the above mentioned on the basis of the judgment in L. Robert D souza (supra) as the declaration that the work was a project was made after examining the facts. ( 8 ) THIRDLY, there would be some difficulty in implementing the order of the Labour Court as it might result in discrimination, because workmen of the same category had approached the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others. Civil Writ Petition No. 147 and 320 to 369 of 1983, decided on 18th April, 1985, wherein a scheme had been worked out to give benefits from 1st January, 1981. ( 9 ) MR. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the workman, in reply submitted that the impugned order is valid and within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court: the judgment in D. Souza s case (supra) is clear and has been correctly applied ; and some difficulties in implementation are immaterial especially as there is on decision by the Supreme Court on merits in Inder Pal Yadav s case (supra ). ( 10 ) IN order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to examine the scope and ambit of section 33c of the Act and the various circulars issued by the Railway authorities. ( 10 ) IN order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to examine the scope and ambit of section 33c of the Act and the various circulars issued by the Railway authorities. Section 33c (2) of the Act provides : "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 (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. " ( 11 ). From the above provision, it is apparent that the Labour Court can compute the benefit in terms of money which the workman is entitled to receive from the employer. The workman has based his entitlement to this money on three circulars of the Government of India. ( 12 ) THE first circular dated 31st July, 1973, incorporates the Railway Board s letter dated 12th July, 1973 and is as follows :-- "sub :- Employment of Cuasal Labour on Railways. A copy of Railway Board s letter No. PC-72/rlt-69/3 (i), dated 12. 7. 1973 on the above subject is forwarded for information and guidance. Board s letter No. E (NG)-60cl-13. dated 22. 8. 1962 REFERRED TO to therein was circulated under this office letter No. 220-E/190-IV (EIV), dated 31. 8. 72/1. 9. 92 (P. S. No. 1731 ). "sub :-Employment of Casual Labour on Railways. The Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969, which was appointed by Government under the permanent Negotiating Machinery dealing with the demands in regard to which agreement could not be reached between the Railway Board and the organised labour, has, inter alia made the following recommendations in respect of the issues relating to Casual Labour. 4. 26 (4) (i) The period of maximum service for earning temporary status should be fixed atfour months instead of six . 4. 4. 26 (4) (i) The period of maximum service for earning temporary status should be fixed atfour months instead of six . 4. 26 (4) (ii) If casual labourer is engaged on works which automatically expire on 31st March, the continuity of his service shall not be regarded as broken if sanction for the work is given subsequently and the same casual labour employed to finish the work, provided further that no casual labourer shall be prevented from working on such job so as as to deprive him of earning the status of a temporary Railway Worker. (2) The Government have accepted the above recommendations of the Tribunal and accordingly it has been decided by the Railway Board that Casual Labour other than those employed on projects should be treated as temporary after the expiry of four months continuous employment instead of six months as at present laid down in Board s letter No. E (NG)60cll3, dated 22. 862 as amended from tin. e to time and incorporated under para 2501 (b) (i) and (iii) of Chapter XXV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. (3) It has also been decided that if a casual labourer is engaged on works which automatically expire on 31st March, there should be no break in his service provided that sanction for that work is given subsequently and the same casual labourer is employed to finish the work. It should also be ensured that no casual labourer is prevented from working a job so as to deprive him of earning the staus of a temporary railway servant. " ( 13 ) THE second circular dated 21st March, 1974 is as follows : "snb: Employment of Casual Labour on Railway. Granting of Authorised Scale of Pay to Casual Labours on completion of 9 months now four months continuous service. Attention is invited to Railway Board s letter No. . PC-72/ LLI-69/3 (1), dated 12. 7. 73 where in the Board while accepting the recommendations of the Railway Labour Tribunal have decided that Casual Labour other than those employed on Projects should be treated as temporary, after the expiry of four months continuous employment, instead of 6 months as existed previously. It follows that it is the responsibility of the administration to bring the Casual Labours who have continuously been employed for a period of four months to authorised scale of Pay. It follows that it is the responsibility of the administration to bring the Casual Labours who have continuously been employed for a period of four months to authorised scale of Pay. It is however, observed that insome departments Casual Labours are not brought on authorised scale of Pay and continue to be employed on Casual Labour rates. . Non-granting of authorised scale of pay to such Labourer on expiry of 4 months attracts the provision of Board s orders It is understood that in all estimates prepared by the Executive Officer concerned, provision for staff is made on C/l rates. This maybe on account of limited funds allotted for the work. All T. L As are also sanctioned making provision for employing men on C. L. rates and on account of this Casual Labourer are not being brought on authorised Scale of Pay after the stipulated period. It is desired that all concerned should be advised in this regard to make provision for labours on Authorised Scale of Pay so as to comply with Railway Board s orders REFERRED TO to above. By doing this you may be slightly over-budgeting in as much as for the first 4 months the provision would be made on Authorised Scale whereas staff would be appointed on Casual Labour rates, but this slight over-budgeting would be desirable to ensure that Railway Board s orders are implemented and there should be no Labour unrest on this account. The Officers concerned should also be instructed that no Casual Labour is prevented from working on such jobs so as to deprive him of earning the status of a temporary Railway servant on the expiry of the continuous employment for a period beyond 4 months. " ( 14 ) THE last circular dated 12th June, 1974 bearing No. PC-72/rlt-69-3 is in the following terms : "sub: Wages of casual labour employed on Railway "projects".- Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969. The Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969 has inter alia recorded following decision in respect of issue relating to wages of casual labour employed on Railway Projects under the Term of Reference No. . 3 viz payment of wages to casual labour :- "4. The Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969 has inter alia recorded following decision in respect of issue relating to wages of casual labour employed on Railway Projects under the Term of Reference No. . 3 viz payment of wages to casual labour :- "4. 26 (6) The provision contained in the Manual in regard to project casual labour should be so amended as to provide that such casual labour will also be paid the scale rate if the same happens to be higher than the local rate, if the project casual labour is employed for a continuous period of six months in the same type of work. It may be clarified that, as a result of this decision, a project casual labourer will not acquire the status of temporary servant, nor will he have the benefit of any future increments. " (2) The Government have accepted the above recommendation. Accordingly it has been decided by Railway Board, in modification of the provisions contained in Para 2502 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual as introduced vide their letter No. E (NG) 60 C L 13 dated 22. 8. 62, that casual labour employed on Railway projects will be paid l/30th of the appropriate scale rate i e. , the minimum of the appropriate revised scale plus Dearness Allowance, if the same happens to be higher than the local market rate of daily wages in respect of such casual labour, on completion of six months continuous service in the same type of work the effect from 1-6-74 or on the date from which the six months service is completed whichever is later. (3) Casual Labour on scheduled employments who arc governed by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act (Central) and who are normally paid the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, will also be paid l/30tb of the appropriate revised scale plus Dearness Allowance, if the same happens to be higher than the minimum wages fixed under the said Act subject however to their fulfilling the conditions laid down in para 2 above. (4) It has also been decided that the casual labour employed on projects paid on the basis-of l/30th of the scale rate will not be entitled to rights and privileges as admissible to temporary employees or to such of those casual labour who acquire temporary status on completion of 4 months service in terms of Board s Letter No. PC72/rlt69/3 (i) dated 12,7. 1973. (5) These orders will take effect from 1. 6. 1974. (6) Railway Administrations should meet the increased cost of project casual labour from within the sanctioned budget allocation for 1974-75. They should, however, work out an estimate of the additional expenditure involved under each works grant, plan-head allocation wise and furnish the figures to the Board by 30-6-1974 certain. sd/- O. D. Sharma Deputy Director, Estt. (RLT), Railway Board. " ( 15 ) IT is clear from the Railway Board s first letter dated 12th July, 1973 set out above that the Government accepted some recommendations of the Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969, and decided, inter alia, that "casual labour other than those employed on Projects" should be treated as temporary after the expiry of four months of continuous employment. The second circular dated 21st March, 1974 refers to the first and directs the administration to ensure that "casual labours" who have been continuously employed for a period of four months must be brought on to the authorized scale of pay. The last circular dated 12th June, 1974 deals with casual labour employed on projects, arid provides, inter alia, that they should also be paid the scale rate if the same is higher than the local rate. ( 16 ) THEREAFTER on 19th July, 1974, CSTE (Con) issued a circular and directed the CSTE at various places to pay all casual labour employed on Railway projects l/30th of the minimum of the revised scales plus dearness allowances of the corresponding permanent category. Thereafter CSTE (Con) issued another circular dated 30th August/3rd September, 1974 and stated therein as follows : "in continuation to this office letter of even number adated 19. 7. 74 this is to intimate that in consultation with Dr. F. A. and C. A 0. (C), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, it has been decided that all the works under CSTE (C) shall be deemed as PROJECTS. 7. 74 this is to intimate that in consultation with Dr. F. A. and C. A 0. (C), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, it has been decided that all the works under CSTE (C) shall be deemed as PROJECTS. The Labour Court was of the view that this deeming order was issued unfairly with a view to escape financial liabilities in regard tocasual labour working under CSTE (Con) and such a deeming provision could not be made without recourse to facts. ( 17 ) THE point in issue is whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to pass such an order under section 33c of the Act. It would appear to us, it had. The claim of the workman for computation was based on his existing right, dependent on the interpretation of the circulars of the Railway Board issued from time to time. It is now well settled that under section 33c (2) of the Act, the Labour Court can decide incidental matters. ( 18 ) IN The Central Bunk of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. , AIR 1964 SC 743 , Justice Gajendra gadkar speaking for the court was of the view that the words of limitation found in section 33c (1) were not found in section 33c (2) and to that extent the scope of section 33c (2) "is undoubtedly wider than that of section 33 (C (1 ). The court also observed that "we feel no difficulty in holding that for the purpose of making the necessary determination under section 33c (2), it would, in appropriate cases, be open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workman s right rests". ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court however, specified that if an employee is dismissed or demoted and it is his case that the dismissal or demotion is wrongful, it would not be open to him to make a claim for recovery of his salary or wages under section 33c (2) as his demotion or dismissal may give rise to an industrial dispute which may have to be appropriately tried; nor can a settlement be made under section 33c (2) inconsistent with an existing settlement. ( 20 ) THE Court finally observed that the observations made in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanada, AIR 1963 SC 487 that section 33c (l) is a provision in the nature of execution should not be interpreted to mean that the scope of section ?3c (2) is exactly the same as section 33c (l ). ( 21 ) THE Court was of the view that section 33c (2) takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by the employer. Section 33c (2) clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidential to the main determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court by sub-section (2), ( 22 ) IN Namor Ali Choudhury and others v. The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another, A. I. R. 1978 SC 275, Untwalia, J. speaking for the court has relied, inter alia. on the Central Bank of India s case (supra ). The learned Judge while discussing the scope and ambit of section 33c (2) indicated that the expression "if any question arises as to the amount of money due" embraces within its ambit the question whether the amount claimed is due or not. Such a dispute would attract the provision of section 33c (2) of the Act and make the remedy available to the workman concerned. ( 23 ) IT is, therefore, apparent that if the right to receive the benefit is not disputed, all that the Labour Court has to do is to compute the value of the benefit in terms of money. However, if the said right as they pertian to cases of dismissal and/or termination As such, we reject the first submission of Ms. Rachna Joshi. ( 24 ) THE second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is also not tenable. The argument that the declaration by the CSTE (Con) "that all works under CSTE (C) shall be deemed as Projects" is based on facts is apparently wrong. Rachna Joshi. ( 24 ) THE second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is also not tenable. The argument that the declaration by the CSTE (Con) "that all works under CSTE (C) shall be deemed as Projects" is based on facts is apparently wrong. If it were based on an examination of facts, then where was the necessity of using a deeming clause. Factually CSTE (Con) is a permanant establishment and every work under it is not a project. Work has admittedly been going on since 1969 and no time limit has been specified. The workman had admittedly no fixed work place and worked at different places under CSTE (Con) Delhi. Existing work and unplanned and unenvisaged work cannot be a project. The finding of the Labour Court that the deeming provision had been used unfairly to deny the workman financial benefits to which he was entitled by virtue of the Railway Board s decision is not unreasonable and is supported by the decision in L. Robert D. Souza"s case (supra ). While construing the Railway Establishment Manual, rule 2501 (b) (ii)-Labour on Projects, Justice Desai speaking for the court obserbed. " Rule 2501 (b) (i) clearly provides that even where staff is paid from contingencies, they would acquire the status of temporary Railway servants after expiry of six months of continuous employment. But reliance was placed on Rule 2501 (b) (ii) which provides that labour on projects irrespective of duration, except those transferred from other temporary or permanent employment would be treated as casual labour. In order to bring the case within the ambit of this provision it must be snown that for 20 years appellant was employed on projects. Every construction work does not imply project. Project is correlated to planned projects in which the workman is treated as work-charged. The letter dated September 5, 1966, is by the Executive Engineer, Ernakulam, and he refers to the staff as belonging to construction unit. It will be doing violence to language to treat the construction unit as project. Expression project is very well known in a planned development. Therefore, the assertion that the appellant was working on the project is belied by two facts : (i) that contrary to the provision in Rule 2501 that persons belonging to casual labour category cannot be transferred, the appellant was transferred on innumerable occasions as evidenced by orders Ext. Expression project is very well known in a planned development. Therefore, the assertion that the appellant was working on the project is belied by two facts : (i) that contrary to the provision in Rule 2501 that persons belonging to casual labour category cannot be transferred, the appellant was transferred on innumerable occasions as evidenced by orders Ext. P 1 dated January 24, 1962, and Ext. P-2 dated August 25, 1964, and the transfer was in the office of the Executive Engineer (Construction); (ii) there is absolutely no reference to project in the letter, but the department is described as construction unit. If he became surplus on completion of project there was no necessity to absorb him. But the letter dated September 5, 1966, enquires from other executive engineers, not attached to projects, whether the surplus staff, including appellant, could be absorbed by them. This shows that the staff concerned had acquired a status higher than casual labour, say temporary railway servant. And again construction unit is a regular unit all over the Indian Railways. It is a permanent unit and cannot be equated to project. Therefore the averment of the Railway administrative that the appellant was working on project cannot be accepted. He belonged to the construction unit. He was transferred fairly often and he worked continuously for 20 years and when he questioned the bona fides of his transfer he had to be retransferred and paid wages for the period he did not report for duty at the place where he was transferred. Cumulative effect of these facts completely belie the suggestion that the appellant worked on project. Having rendered continous uninterrupted service for over six months, he acquired the status of a temporary railway servant long before the termination of his service and, therefore, his service could not have been terminated under R. 2505. " ( 25 ) IT is clear that but for the deeming provision the workman would have been entitled to temporary status after 120 days in view of the above mentioned circulars of the Railway Board, as the workman docs not appear to have been employed on project for laying down new lines, extension or doubling of track. He was employed, as noticed by the Labour Court, on modernization of signalling equipment on old lines and their maintenance. He was employed, as noticed by the Labour Court, on modernization of signalling equipment on old lines and their maintenance. ( 26 ) IN any case, as observed by the Supreme Court in L. Robert D Souza s case (supra) all construction work is not project work and it will be doing "violence to language to treat the construction unit as project". Ms. Joshi was not able to indicate to us the facts, if any, considered by the CSTE (Con) in arriving at the conclusion that all construction work was project work. In fact it is clear from the circular itself that this is not so and as such the deeming clause had to be used. Consequently, we reject the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 27 ) WITH regard to the last contention, it is necessary to examine what happened in writ petition Nos. 147/83 etc. , Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India etc. and the orders passed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its order dated 18th April, 1985 in Inder Pal Yadav s case (supra) dealt with persons who had come to the court as "project casual labour". The court noticed that the future of lakhs of workmen were likely to be affected and consequently adjourned the matter from time to time so that the Railway Ministry could work out a scientific scheme that would result in their services not being terminated, with impunity; under the specious plea that the project on which they were employed has been wound up on its completion and their services were no more needed. ( 28 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Railway Ministry framed a scheme and circulated the same. The matter was set down for examining the fairness and justness of the scheme. The court considered the scheme and felt that it certainly was an improvement on the situation though not wholly satisfactory. With the variation that it would be applicable to casual labour employed on projects who were in service on 1. 1. 1981 and not 1. 1. 1984 as proposed), the Supreme Court as a "preliminary step towards realisation of the ideal enshrined in Articles 41 and 42" put their stamp of approval on the scheme. With the variation that it would be applicable to casual labour employed on projects who were in service on 1. 1. 1981 and not 1. 1. 1984 as proposed), the Supreme Court as a "preliminary step towards realisation of the ideal enshrined in Articles 41 and 42" put their stamp of approval on the scheme. ( 29 ) AS some retrenched workmen had not knocked "at the doors of the court of justice", presumably because of the heavy expenditure involved, the Supreme Court directed that if "they are otherwise similarly situated they are entitled to similar treatment". The Court directed that the scheme be implemented and "a list of project casual labour with reference to each division of each railway" be made and they be absorbed taking the longest service into consideration. No discussion or argument pertaining to the above mntioned declaration "that all the works under CSTE (C) shall be deemed as projects" was dealt with in the said judgment. ( 30 ) IN Dakshin Railway Employees Union, Trivandrum Division v. General Manager, Southern Railway and others, AIR 1987 SC 1153 , the Supreme Court observed in its order dated 23rd February, 1987 that it had given certain directions in Inderpal Yadav s case (supra) modifying the scheme prepared by the Railway Administration for the purpose of absorbing retrenched railway casual labour. Since the petitioners in Dakshin Railway Employees Union s case (supra) claimed that they were entitled to the modified scheme, the court directed them to submit their claim to the administration. ( 31 ) THEREAFTER in writ petition Nos. 15863-15906 of 1984. Ram Kumar and others v. Union of India, decided on 2nd December, 1987, the Supreme Court noticed that litigation pertaining to retrenchment of casual labour had been coming to the court for over ten years and about three years back, the court had directed a scheme for absorption in lnder pal Yadav s case, which was operative It observed, "casual labour seems to be the requirement of the Railway Administration and cannot beavoided. The railway Administration Manual has made provisions for their protiction but implementation is not effective. Several instructions issued by the Railway Board and the Northern Railway Headquarters were placed before us to show that the Administration is anxious to take appropriate steps to remove the difficulties faced by the casual labour but there is perhaps slackness in enforcing them. The railway Administration Manual has made provisions for their protiction but implementation is not effective. Several instructions issued by the Railway Board and the Northern Railway Headquarters were placed before us to show that the Administration is anxious to take appropriate steps to remove the difficulties faced by the casual labour but there is perhaps slackness in enforcing them. We hope and trust that such an unfortunate situation will not arise again and in the event any such allegation coming to the Court, obviously the Administration will have to be blamed. " ( 32 ) NONE of these cases dealt with the validity of the declaration deeming all construction works to be projects. Therefore, even if a workman has got some advantages as a result of Inderpal Yadav and Ram Kumar s case, it does not mean that he is precluded from challenging on the facts and circumstances that he is not a project worker and is entitled to temporary status after 120 days as a casual labour. The right to be treated at par with persons who were before the Supreme Court cannot stop the workman from contending that he was not a "project casual labour" and consequently became a temporary servant at the conclusion of 120 days in view of the various circulars of the Railway Board. It would, therefore, appear to us that the last contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has also to be rejected. ( 33 ) CONSEQUENTLY we hold that the Labour Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction and its conclusion is supportable on the basis of the above-mentioned decision in Robert D souza s case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.