JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondents as well as Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. 2. The facts of the case are that workman was appointed as muster-roll on 1.7.1976. According to the employer he did not turn up after 11.2.1979 whereas claim of the workman was that his services were illegally terminated and industrial dispute raised by him which was referred to Labour Court, U.P. Agra where reference was registered as Adjudication case No. 182/82, award was given in favour of the workman holding that : “the employers unjustifiably and illegally terminated the services from 11.2.1978 and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The award is made accordingly. Employer shall pay Rs. 50.00 as costs to workmen’s representative in this case. Let a copy of this award be sent to the State Government for approval of publication.” 3. It is not dispute that respondent-workman filed an application under Section 6-H before the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Aligarh for the payment of the back wages amount to Rs. 18,840.70 to him which were paid to him vide bill dated 3.9.1985 and 20.2.1986. Vide order dated 29.12.1988 workman was also regularised in service on the post of Coolie in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-1190 with allowances. 4. The concerned workman filed an application 33-C (2) before the Labour Court, Agra for computation of his salary treating him to be a permanent employee of the Board and directing to the U.P. Electricity Board for payment of Rs. 40,115.90 alongwith interest on basis of equal pay for equal work for the period 1.2.1976 to 31.8.1986. 5. The claim of the workman was contested by the petitioner-employer. The Labour Court vide its order dated 25.6.1996, allowed the claim of the workman directing the petitioner to pay 40,115.90 to the concerned workman/legal heir within one month of passing of the order and also pay 12 % interest. 6. No other point has been argued. 7. It appears that workman had died on 9.7.1993 and Smt. Indrawati respondent No. 2 w/o late Vindhyachal concerned was substituted in his place. The concerned workman was earlier appointed as daily wager and his services has been regularised on 29.2.1988 after award was passed in Adjudication case No. 182/82. 8. 6. No other point has been argued. 7. It appears that workman had died on 9.7.1993 and Smt. Indrawati respondent No. 2 w/o late Vindhyachal concerned was substituted in his place. The concerned workman was earlier appointed as daily wager and his services has been regularised on 29.2.1988 after award was passed in Adjudication case No. 182/82. 8. It also appears from record that case of the workman before the Labour Court under Section 33-C had claimed that he discharged same work which was being performed by the regular employee and as such he is entitled to regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.2.1976 to 1.8.1986. It further appears from record that the workman had not performed any work during the period 11.2.1978 till 1.2.1986. When he was reinstated in service, he has been paid all his dues under the award and if the petitioner claims wages on basis of equal pay for equal work, he can get regular salary only on adjudication of his claim regarding nature of duties discharged by him etc. in a separate adjudication under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as once the award has been complied with by reinstatement of the workman and payment of all his dues etc. no claim under Section 33 (2) of the nature as in the present case could be maintainable. 9. In my opinion the application of the workman under Section 33-C(2) was not maintainable for the reason that he cannot be treated to be performed on the basis of equal pay for equal work, which has not been adjudicated by any Court. Section 33-C (2) is as under : “33-C(2) 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.” 10. Under the aforesaid section, those amount can be computed to be paid, which can be calculated on existing right of an employee. There was no dispute regarding the payment of regular pay scale from 1978 to 1986 in the adjudication case decided by the Labour Court and do not have any existing right. If otherwise in case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another, 1995 (1) SCC 235 in paragraph 12 it has been held that : “The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation of enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court’s power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court’s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution.” 11. The aforesaid case Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) was also the case where workman had claimed computation of arrears of wages on the basis of equal pay for equal work, which has been turned down by the Apex Court. 12. For all the reason and the law stated above, this petition is allowed. ————