Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 7. 8. 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. 12/98 I. D. Act whereby the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act) filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and it has been directed to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 26,222/ -. ( 2. ) IN the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act it is prayed by the respondent No. 1 that he is entitled to get the following payments from the department: i As per advertisement published in newspaper for appointment to termination (resignation) payment shall be done as per State Government U. G. C. Grade; ii. Appointment order dated 24. 9. 97 Steno Typist, the condition that the applicant will be entitled for dearness allowances as per Government rate, which was not paid to the applicant; iii. Nine day payment withheld from 1. 10. 98 to 9. 10. 98, Rs. 1656/-only; iv. Rs. 600/-Examination conducted by the applicant, and was duly ordered by the non-applicants. In this manner the respondent No. 1 claimed an amount of Rs. 26,262/ -. ( 3. ) A written statement was filed by the present petitioner refuting the averments made in the application. In the written statement it has been pleaded that indeed respondent No. 1, since he got Government job, resigred from the services and the resignation was accepted by the management. It was denied that T. A. advance was not properly adjusted. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 1 received entire amount as per record. Even for conducting examination a sum of Rs. 365/- has been paid to him by the department. Similarly, Tour Allowance of Rs. 938/- was paid to him through cheque dated 21. 11. 98. The entire amount of T. A. and D. A. and remuneration for conducting examination was paid to the respondent No. 1 vide cheque dated 24. 12. 98, amounting to Rs 1,754/ -. According to the stand taken in the written statement by the petitioner the respondent No. 1 applied for leave w. e. f. 26. 9. 98 to 29. 9. 98 and also for 3rd October, 1998 which was sanctioned. 12. 98, amounting to Rs 1,754/ -. According to the stand taken in the written statement by the petitioner the respondent No. 1 applied for leave w. e. f. 26. 9. 98 to 29. 9. 98 and also for 3rd October, 1998 which was sanctioned. The extra-ordinary leave was sanctioned without pay from 26th to 29th September and 3rd October, 1998. The respondent No. 1 did not show any interest in the University work. Five days leave was adjusted in the month of October. Specific plea was also raised in para 8 of the written statement that the respondent No. 1 cannot claim UGC scale and for that there should be a reference under the Act. Without reference there cannot be any adjudication. On the basis of these submissions it was prayed that the application be dismissed. ( 4. ) THE Labour Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties has passed the impugned order allowing the application of respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 26. 222/ -. ( 5. ) IT has been argued by Shri Shukla, learned senior counsel that in order to decide the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, there should be an ascertained amount and if the amount is disputed, adjudication is required. In the present case since in the written statement, claim of the respondent No. 1 has been denied and it has been further held that he is not entitled for UGC scale as well as the amount of T. A. and D. A. and the amount for conducting the examination was paid to him, therefore the amount which is claimed by the respondent No. 1 is disputed and therefore adjudication is required and hence the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act filed by respondent No. 1 was not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. JT1994 (7 )SC 476 , (1995 )I LLJ395 SC , 1994 (4 )SCALE967 , (1995 )1 SCC235 , [1994 ]supp4 SCR617 , 1995 (1 )SLJ168 (SC ). ( 6. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. JT1994 (7 )SC 476 , (1995 )I LLJ395 SC , 1994 (4 )SCALE967 , (1995 )1 SCC235 , [1994 ]supp4 SCR617 , 1995 (1 )SLJ168 (SC ). ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri Ariha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 argued in support of the impugned order and by inviting my attention to para 5 of the order of the Labour Court it has been contended that as per Ex. P-10 which is the statement prepared by the respondent No. 1, an amount of Rs. 26,262/- was required to be paid to him. Since there is no rebuttal to Ex. P-10 which is the statement of account prepared by the respondent No. 1 himself, Labour Court did not err in passing the impugned order directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 26,222/ -. The contention of learned Counsel is that this petition be dismissed. ( 7. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8. ) NO doubt in the application filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act (Annex. P-9) the respondent No. 1 has claimed certain, amount which I have already mentioned hereinabove. But, in the written statement said amount has been disputed by the petitioner. A categorical stand has been taken in the written statement that respondent No. 1 is not entitled for UGC. scale and, therefore, the said amount is not ascertained. Similarly there is averment in the written statement that the amount towards T. A. and D. A. as well as for conducting examination was paid to the respondent No. 1. On bare perusal of statement of account of respondent No. 1 which he gave before the Labour Court, it is gathered that he was receiving D. A. as was being paid to the other employees. Thus it was for the workman to show that that how much and in what manner the difference of the D. A. was not paid to him. Even if the case of the workman is considered in toto, according to him certain amount was already paid to him and thus amount which he is claiming is disputed and for that an adjudication is required. Even if the case of the workman is considered in toto, according to him certain amount was already paid to him and thus amount which he is claiming is disputed and for that an adjudication is required. An order under Section 33-C (2) can be passed by the Labour Court only if the amount is ascertained. Since the amount claimed is disputed, the Labour Court was not having any jurisdiction to pass impugned order. The decision of Ganesh Razak (supra) of the Supreme Court is squarely applicable in the present case. ( 9. ) THERE is no force in the contention of learned Counsel the respondent No. 1 that as per Ex. P-10 which was filed before the Labour Court, the amount payable to the respondent No. 1 is ascertained. It be seen that the said statement was prepared by the respondent No. 1 himself and there is no acknowledgment of the petitioner that the said amount is admitted to be paid by the department. ( 10. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 7. 8. 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. 12/98 I. D. Act cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the order of the Labour Court be refunded to the petitioner. ( 11. ) THIS petition is allowed with no order as to costs.