This writ application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the award dated 4.12.95 passed by the Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Misc Case No.5 of 1993. That was a claim under section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court passed an award for an amount of Rs.74,588.50 together with interest @12% PM from the date of filing the petition till the realisation alongwith legal expenses costing Rs.500/-. Earlier there was a settlement/agreement between the Management of the tea estate and Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha wherein the pension benefits for Clerical, Medical and Artisan Staff was referred to, and that agreement was on 15.8.70 and that agreement was in the field when the application was filed before the Labour Court. Hie term of settlement provides for pension and how pension is to be computed are there in detail in the particular settlement. The Management gave pension to the workmen/petitioner for few months after his retirement and thereafter the payment of pension was stopped on the ground that the workman was responsible for making excess payment to the labourers. But Sri Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner failed to satisfy me as to why the payment of pension was stopped in such a manner and no enquiry was also held to come to the finding that the workman was responsible for such excess payment as alleged by the Management. So, the whole approach of the Management was violative of principle of natural justice. 2. On pension being stopped an application was filed by the workman before the Labour Court on 5th August, 1993 claiming the pension and other benefits. The first claim made was regarding gratuity but later on that was amended by filing an application claiming pension. The Management filed its objection contending inter alia as follows : (i) That the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as it was with regard to the entitlement of the workman and that cannot be the subject matter of a proceeding under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (ii) In order to decide this matter it is necessary to refer the disputes and without reference, this question cannot be decided. 3. The Labour Court inter alia found as follows : (i) That the existing right of the workman/petitioner to get money benefits as claimed is not disputed by the Management. (ii) In order to decide this matter it is necessary to refer the disputes and without reference, this question cannot be decided. 3. The Labour Court inter alia found as follows : (i) That the existing right of the workman/petitioner to get money benefits as claimed is not disputed by the Management. (ii) Relying on AIR 1978 SC 275 (Namor All Choudhury & others vs. The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd) and AIR 1990 SC 1923 (0V Kapoor vs. Union of India & others) the Labour Court came to the decision that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter and Labour Court further came to the finding that the employer has violated the settlement by withholding the pension to the petitioner without proceeding and/or enquiry. (ii) The Labour Court further found that the employer did not file any document nor it has adduced any evidence to substantiate its allegation that it has incurred loss due to the petitioner's wrong action. 4. Thereafter, the Labour Court computed the amount and accordingly the award was passed as indicated above, Hence, this application. 5. I have heard Sri C. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri A. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2. Sri Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner raises before me the same contentions which were raised before the learned Labour Court and he relies on three decisions : (i) (1995) 1SCC 235 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak & another) wherein the Supreme Court pointed out that under section 33C (2) of the Act, the Labour Court cannot decide the dispute of entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit of workman. It can only interpret settlement on which the claim is based. The jurisdiction is like that of executing Court as indicated above in the aforesaid case. In the case in hand there was a settlement and it was on the basis of that particular settlement this application under section 33C (2) of the Act was filed. So, this case does not help the petitioner rather it helps the respondents. In this particular case, the entitlement of the workman has been admitted by the employer and on such admission, the pension was paid for some months and thereafter it was stopped on the basis of the allegation as indicated above. So, this case does not help the petitioner rather it helps the respondents. In this particular case, the entitlement of the workman has been admitted by the employer and on such admission, the pension was paid for some months and thereafter it was stopped on the basis of the allegation as indicated above. (ii) The next case relied on by Sri Baruah is (1988) 3 SCC 457 (PK Singh & others vs. Presiding Officer & others). In that particular case the claim of the appellants before the Apex Court was that they had been actually promoted to B grade fitters cadre and that the Management had denied that there was such promotion. Further case was that a workman appointed as C grade fitter was doing the same kind of work as B grade fitter and as such he was entitled to the same salary as B grade fitter. Ths Supreme Court pointed out that this matter cannot be determined or decided under section 33C (2) inasmuch as the question of entitlement will not arise in such a case. That is not the position in the instant case. As indicated above in the award of the Labout Court and as found by me also the petitioner was entitled to the pension and that is also agreed by the Management but the only question is that the Management wants to deprive the workman from this pension on the ground that the workman when he was in service resorted to some wrong action, but the Labour Court cannot deprive of the petitioner the quantum of pension on this ground. So, this case also does not support the petitioner. (iii) Next case relied on is (1987) 1 SCC 146 (Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s Pan American World Airways Inc & others). This case is absolutely irrelevant for determination of question before us inasmuch as that was a case regarding dismissal and right of a person to get pension in such a case. But that is not the facts of case in hand. The facts of the instant case are absolutely different. 6. This case is absolutely irrelevant for determination of question before us inasmuch as that was a case regarding dismissal and right of a person to get pension in such a case. But that is not the facts of case in hand. The facts of the instant case are absolutely different. 6. On the otherhand, Sri Dasgupta relies on the decision relied on by the Labour Court i.e. AIR 1978 SC 275 (Namor Ali Choudhury & others vs. The Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd & another) wherein in paragraph 4 and 5, the law has been laid down as follows : "4. On a plain reading of the wordings of the statute it would be found that where any workman is entitled to receive from employer any money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may be decided by the Labour Court. The expression "if any question arises as to the amount of money due" embraces within its ambit any one or more of the following kinds of disputes : (1) Whether there is any settlement or award as alleged ? (2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money at all under any settlement or an award etc ? (3) If so, what will be the rate of quantum of such amount ? (4) Whether the amount claimed is due or not ? Broadly speaking, these will be the disputes which will be referable to the question as to the amount of money due. If the right to get the money on the basis of the settlement or the award is not established, no amount of money will be due. If it is established, then it has to be found out, albeit, it may be by mere calculation, as to what is the amount due. For finding it out, it is not necessary that there should be a dispute as to the amount of money due also. The fourth kind of dispute which we have indicated above obviously and literally will be covered by the phrase 'amount of money due'. A dispute as to all such questions or any of them would attract the provisions of section 33C (2) of the Act and make the remedy available to the workman concerned. 5. The fourth kind of dispute which we have indicated above obviously and literally will be covered by the phrase 'amount of money due'. A dispute as to all such questions or any of them would attract the provisions of section 33C (2) of the Act and make the remedy available to the workman concerned. 5. It is not necessary to elaborately discuss the various authorities of this Court on the point. To our mind the view we have expressed above is plainly and squarely covered by the principle of law enunciated by this Court in several decisions; to with Central Bank of India vs. PS Rajagopalan etc, (1964) 3 SCR 140 : ( AIR 1964 SC 743 ); RB Bansilal Abirchand Mills Co Ltd vs. Labour Court, Nagpur, (1972) 2 SCR 580 : ( AIR 1972 SC 451 ) and Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ( AIR 1975 SC 1745 )." 7. 1982 Labour and Industrial Cases NOC 45 (William Goodacre and Sons India Ltd vs. M. Govindan & another) wherein the Kerala High Court pointed out inter alia as follows : "The right to receive pension is a contingent right which becomes a vested right upon retirement. The employer has no right to alter the terms and conditions or service of a past employee. Section 33C (2) is available to an employee who claims certain benefits from the employer even when his claim or the right upon which the claim is founded is disputed by the employer and not espoused by a Union. An enquiry into such dispute is incidental to the power to determine the amount claimed by the employee. A claim based on a right which is derived under a contract of employment is indeed a claim which is enforceable under the section even when the right is dispute. AIR 1964 SC 743 relied on. The definition of 'workman' in the Act, does not exclude the applicability of the Act to the claims of workman arising from their contract of service, albeit the claims themselves are subsequent to the termination of the contract. (1961) 1 Lab LJ 69 (Mad) relied on." 8. AIR 1964 SC 743 relied on. The definition of 'workman' in the Act, does not exclude the applicability of the Act to the claims of workman arising from their contract of service, albeit the claims themselves are subsequent to the termination of the contract. (1961) 1 Lab LJ 69 (Mad) relied on." 8. As pointed out by the Kerala High Court, the right to receive pension becomes a vested right upon retirement and that vested right cannot be taken away or wiped out in the manner sought to be done by the Management in the instant case. If that is allowed to be done the whole concept of pension itself shall evaporate and that is not the purpose of law. 9. AIR 1990 SC 1923 (DV Kapoor vs. Union of India & another). That was a case where it was pointed out that the President reserves himself the right to withhold pension in whole or in part permanently or for a specified period. But there is also condition precedent that there should be findings that the delinquent is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in discharging duty in the office and that findings must be established before a person retired from service or enquiry must be held/initiated before his retirement. 10. In the instant case that is not the position. Rather as already I have pointed out no such power is there with the Management to withheld the pension, that is also after it was fixed and payment was made. 11. In that view of the matter, this writ application shall stand dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/- inasmuch as this poor retired employee/workman has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court and stay order has been obtained as far back as on 10.4.96.