Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows: Petitioner herein is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Vellore, dated April 14, 1995, by which the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed by the worker/respondent herein, has been allowed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 62, 136 to the respondent herein. The petitioner is a Company wherein the respondent was a workman as a Turner. He was working on a monthly salary of Rs. 300 from 1981. The respondents case is that he was terminated from service in 1983 and, therefore, he raised an industrial dispute, I.D. No. 128 of 1984. Ultimately, the Labour Court, by award dated December 10, 1998, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with back wages and continuity of service. His further claim was that when he demanded reinstatement, the petitioner, by letter dated December 20, 1991, asked the respondent to join duty in Delhi. It is further claimed by the respondent that he had objected to this by stating that he should be given the same posting in the same place where he was previously employed and that the respondent also wrote to the Labour Officer about the attitude of the Management. According to him, the Management did not pay heed to the advice given by the Labour Officer and the salary of the respondent was fixed by the letter dated December 15, 1996 at Rs. 1, 726.20. He, therefore, claimed that he should be paid his salary from January 1, 1992 upto December 31, 1997 at the rate of Rs. 1, 726.20 per month. This was countered by the Management by saying that after the workman was ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Court with back wages, the respondent was paid Rs. 30, 800 towards his back wages vide cheque dated August 27, 1992 and the respondent had also received it. It was then pointed out that the workman was transferred to Delhi branch of the petitioner vide letter dated December 20, 1991 as per the general practice prevailing in the Company. It is then claimed that the workman merely started writing letters dated January 9, 1992, February 7, 1992, August 12, 1992, August 27, 1992 and September 12, 1992. It was then pointed out that the workman was transferred to Delhi branch of the petitioner vide letter dated December 20, 1991 as per the general practice prevailing in the Company. It is then claimed that the workman merely started writing letters dated January 9, 1992, February 7, 1992, August 12, 1992, August 27, 1992 and September 12, 1992. It was also pointed out that the workman was specifically instructed that unless he reported for duty at Delhi branch, his absence would be deemed to be unauthorised absence. It was then pointed out vide letter dated September 28, 1992 that the workman had consented to join duty at Delhi branch and wanted to know the salary and that his salary was fixed at Rs. 1726.20 vide letter dated October 15, 1992. The travelling allowance was also offered to him. Again on May 21, 1993, a letter was sent to him in the nature of a reminder, directing him to report for work at Delhi. However, the workman had not reported. It was, therefore, claimed that the workman was not entitled to the back wages or future wages. It was pointed out in paragraph 9 of the counter statement that the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act were purely execution proceedings and in this case the entitlement itself was not disputed and since the workman had not joined duty at the transferred place, he would not be entitled to the wages for the above period. On this, the parties went before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has passed the order, to which a reference has already been madeThe learned senior counsel Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, firstly raised a preliminary point that the application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act itself was not maintainable since the workman had remained absent and admittedly he had not joined duty. It was pointed out that the workman had himself offered by his letter dated September 28, 1992 to join the service, but has chosen not to join at Delhi. It was pointed out that the workman had himself offered by his letter dated September 28, 1992 to join the service, but has chosen not to join at Delhi. In the wake of this consent letter dated September 28, 1992 and in the wake of the subsequent letter dated October 15, 1992 sent by the petitioner to the workman, it was the duty of the workman to join the work, but he has still not bothered to join and merely proceeded with an application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Labour Court had not even bothered to consider the issue regarding the tenability of the said application. I have closely seen the order passed by the Labour Court. After making reference to the respective pleadings, the Labour Court has framed the point as follows: "The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the claim made ?" In paragraph 5, the Labour Court has found that the earlier award vide I.D. No. 124 of 1984 had become final. It then observed in paragraph 6 that the back wages upto December, 1991 were paid by the Management. In paragraph 7, the Labour Court mentions that the petitioner had claimed the future wages upto 1997, the year of his superannuation and that this claim could not be allowed and he would be entitled to the wages only upto the date of petition, which is June, 1993. In paragraph 8, the Labour Court has referred to the pleadings in defence by the present petitioner and ultimately found that the Management was not sincere in its offer of reinstatement, which could be gathered from the wordings found in the various communications addressed to the workman. It is then observed that the Management has very unreasonably asked for some documents from the workman and that the Management had not offered to pay the back wages to the workman. Thereafter, after mentioning in paragraph 9 about the salary fixed at Rs. 1, 726.25, the Labour Court has abruptly found that the workman is entitled to the future wages from January 11, 1992 to December 31, 1994 and the total amount came to Rs. 62, 136. This is, in short, the order passed by the Labour Court. In fact, there does not appear to be any application of mind in this order. 1, 726.25, the Labour Court has abruptly found that the workman is entitled to the future wages from January 11, 1992 to December 31, 1994 and the total amount came to Rs. 62, 136. This is, in short, the order passed by the Labour Court. In fact, there does not appear to be any application of mind in this order. The Labour Court was expected to first examine as to whether, in the wake of refusal on the part of the workman to join the work and even in the wake of the submitted position that he had not worked even or a single day after he was directed to be reinstated, such an application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act could at all be made and whether it was maintainable on the touch-stone of Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act and more particularly in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another, 1995-I-LLJ-395. There appears to be no application of mind by the Labour Court to any of these aspects. The Labour Court also does not show as to how the future wages where granted even without examining the situation as to whether the workman was justified in not joining the work though he has specifically agreed to Join duty by his letter dated September 28, 1992. Under such circumstances, when the employer has specifically questioned the right of the employee to get the wages on account of his continued absence, it would have been proper for the Labour Court first to go into the question as to whether the application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act was maintainable at all. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Labour Court to first decide the question regarding the tenability of the application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act and then proceed to decide the rest of the claim on the basis of that finding. Since the matter has already become very old, the Labour Court would be well advised to dispose of the application within six months of the intimation of this Court reaching the Labour Court. With these observations, the Rule is made absolute, but without any orders as to the costs. Connected W.M.P. No. 23238 of 1995 is disposed of.