Judgment :- The petitioner is the General Manager of Southern Railways, Chennai. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Labour Court made in C.P.No.41 of 1989 dated 20.12.1996, the present petition has been filed. 2. The claim of the 1st respondent/workman was that he was employed as a Reviter Khalasi from 19.02.1978 on daily rate wages of Rs.200/- and was retrenched on 20.11.1979. According to the 1st respondent, he was retrenched without assigning any valid reason and since his termination amounted to retrenchment under Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of the petitioner was illegal and therefore, he is liable to get wages as if there was no retrenchment. He also contended that coworkers, who were similarly retrenched, were in employment. In that view of the matter, he filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 2nd respondent/Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, no documents were filed and no oral evidence was let in. However, the Labour Court accepted the averments made in the claim statement and computed the wages for the 1st respondent for a sum of Rs.72,900/-. It also held that the petitioner had worked for 120 days and therefore, he has attained a Temporary Railway Servant Status and therefore, he is eligible for other benefits. The Management of the Southern Railway, aggrieved by the same, had filed the present writ petition. 3. Mr.S.Vaidhyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Railways submitted that such a petition under Section 33-C(2) is not maintainable and he also relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi -vs-Ganesh Razak and another reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 296, to drive home the point that in a disputed question of entitlement, a petition under Section 33-C(2) is not maintainable. 4. However, Mr.Dhiraviyanathan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that a claim under Chapter V A or V B of the I.D.Act is maintainable, even under Section 33-C (2). 5. The Supreme Court, in Fabril Gasosa -vs-Labour Commissioner and others reported in 1994 (90) FJR 306 has held that either the claim under Section 33C(1) or Section 33C(2) the rights flowing from Chapter V A or V B can be dealt with and therefore, no exception can be taken. 5. The Supreme Court, in Fabril Gasosa -vs-Labour Commissioner and others reported in 1994 (90) FJR 306 has held that either the claim under Section 33C(1) or Section 33C(2) the rights flowing from Chapter V A or V B can be dealt with and therefore, no exception can be taken. The Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Ramnath -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 1995 Labour Industrial Cases 1561 has held that the mere denial of the right of the workman by the employer will not divest the Labour Court of its jurisdiction to entertain the application of the employee. There is no quarrel over the proposition. If merely a workman claimes compensation, then the rights can be quantified in terms Chapter V A of the I.D. Act. But in the present case, the workman had claimed wages as if he was in service. In such circumstances, whether the claim under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable will have to be decided. The Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Corporation -vs-D.D.Gupta and another reported in 1978 (1) LLJ 122 had summarised the scope of Labour Courts power under Section 33-C(2). In that judgment, the Delhi High Court listed out 7 parameters for the Labour Court to deal with. In the claim under Section 33-C(2), in the list of paramaters, Sl.No.6 clearly states as follows:- "If the relationship of master and servant has been terminated, then the Labour Court cannot determine the validity of the termination for the purposes of determining a money claim." If this indice is taken into account, then certainly the claim made by the 1st respondent cannot be countenanced by the Labour Court. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.41 of 1989 dated 20.12.1996 will stand set aside. The writ petition is allowed. This will not prevent the 1st respondent from raising an Industrial Dispute to determine the validity of his retrenchment and then claim appropriate relief. However there will be no order as to costs.