JUDGMENT 1. - All the above numbered writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. The order of the Labour Court dated 10.9.92 has been challenged on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to confer a right which was not in existence. The power according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is stated to be only of executing court. The respondents where appointed as clerks on daily wages basis and their services were terminated. Against such a termination order the workmen approached this court and the writ petitions were allowed on 23.9.87. The petitioners were taken on duty from 1.4.1988. Thereafter, the claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was moved. An application under section 33-C(2) was allowed. 2. The arguments of learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. It is an established principle of law that if the services of the workmen have been terminated and the court finds that the termination is not in accordance with law then he is entitled for the benefit which he was getting at the time when services were terminated. It is not in dispute that at that time the workmen were on daily wages basis. It is only subsequently that they have been regularised on the post of L.D.C. Another important question which arises for determination is that whether the application under section 33-C(2) could have been maintained in such a situation when the benefit of equal pay for equal work is claimed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are two sets of writ petitions and in case of Shiv Nand Singh and others v. State, D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1238/87 decided on 23.9.87 , the termination was held void and the workmen were held entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the consequential benefits can be only those to which the workmen were entitled and were getting before the termination. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the consequential benefits can be only those to which the workmen were entitled and were getting before the termination. It was stated that in another set of special appeals in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Mathur, Q.B. Special Appeal No. 33/86 the termination was held valid I need not go to this controversy because the orders which have been passed in the case of the workmen in the present proceedings alone are to be seen and in those cases the termination of the workmen was held void and they were held entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The words 'consequential benefits' could only be interpreted to mean those benefits which the workmen were getting at the time of their termination. I think that the plea of equal pay for equal work was raised and even if raised was not decided by this court and therefore, application under Section 33-C(2) was again raised. The labour court could act only as an executing court as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh, 1995 (1) SCC 235 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent workmen that there was no dispute with regard to claim of equal pay on the basis of equal work. This contention cannot be accepted as correct one because not only before the lower court even here also the dispute is raised that the workmen are entitled only for the benefits which they were entitled at the time of termination of their services. The application under section 33-C(2) was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. 4. All the above writ petitions are allowed and the award of the labour court is quashed and it is directed that the workmen would be entitled in respect of the period for which they have not worked and the termination order was held void at the same rate as they were getting at the time of termination of their services. The extra benefits could not have been conferred in the proceedings under section 33- C(2). The amount of Rs. The extra benefits could not have been conferred in the proceedings under section 33- C(2). The amount of Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid to each of the workman by order of this court and I do not consider that now at this stage the amount should be recalled.Writ Petition Allowed. *******