JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in these two Writ Petitions is the common management in C.P.Nos. 52 of 2003 and 6 of 2004 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. They are challenging the common order passed by the Labour Court in those two claim petitions, which is produced as Ext. P3 in both the Writ Oetitions. The facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions may be summarized as under. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 in W.P.(C) No. 10079/2009 and respondents 1 to 4 in the other were workmen employed by the petitioner. According to the workmen, in retaliation of their raising claim for minimum wages, they were terminated from service on false allegations. They filed the claim petitions before the Labour Court for recovery of the difference between minimum wages payable to them and the actual wages paid, difference in subsistence allowance payable to them calculated on the basis of minimum wages and overtime wages for overtime work done by them. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner took the contention that the eligibility of the workmen for minimum wages itself is an industrial dispute, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, since such proceedings are in the nature of execution proceedings, in which, only pre-existing rights only can be enforced. Overruling the said objections, the Labour Court proceeded to compute the amounts due to the workmen under the three heads and directed the petitioner to pay the same to the workmen by Ext. P3 common order. That is under challenge in these two Writ Petitions. 3. The petitioner’s contention is that the powers of the Labour Court under S.33C(2) is confined to computing the amounts due as a benefit, which is capable of being computed in terms of money. That presupposes a right in the workman for a benefit which has already been adjudicated by a competent authority. When the right which the workman seeks to enforce under S.33C(2) is disputed by the management, the Labour Court cannot, by itself, adjudicate the existence of such right and such adjudication can be done only in a reference under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the right which the workman seeks to enforce under S.33C(2) is disputed by the management, the Labour Court cannot, by itself, adjudicate the existence of such right and such adjudication can be done only in a reference under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Labour Court ought to have relegated the workmen to their remedy by way of raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, since the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is the contention raised by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.K. Singh & Ors. v. Presiding Officer & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 457, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Ors. ( (1995) 1 SCC 235 ), State of U.P and another v. Brijpal Singh (2005) 8 SCC 58 ) and H.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ranjeeth Singh & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 241 , as also the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Haridas v. Labour Court ( 2006 (2) KLT 641 ) in support of his contention. 4. The counsel for the workmen would contend that simply because the management disputes the eligibility of the right to claim the benefit, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not ousted. According to him, not only benefits, right for which has been adjudicated by a competent authority, but also statutory benefits, which can be computed in terms of money can also be enforced under S.33C(2). He points out that admittedly, the petitioner is an establishment registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The Government has issued a notification under the Minimum Wages Act fixing minimum wages payable to employees of shops and commercial establishments. The management is statutorily bound to pay minimum wages as notified by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the right of the workmen to receive minimum wages as so notified has already been statutorily recognised and crystallized. The wages paid by the management to the workmen is also known. Therefore, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to compute the difference between the minimum wages payable statutorily and the wages paid, in exercise of powers under S.33C(2). Therefore, the right of the workmen to receive minimum wages as so notified has already been statutorily recognised and crystallized. The wages paid by the management to the workmen is also known. Therefore, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to compute the difference between the minimum wages payable statutorily and the wages paid, in exercise of powers under S.33C(2). The counsel for the workmen relies on the decisions of this Court in Hindi Prachar Press v. State of Kerala ( 1982 KLT 285 ), Vimal Printers v. Omana ( 1982 KLT 923 ) and Deepak Photos v. State of Kerala ( 2000 (3) KLT 511 (D.B.) in support of the said contention. Regarding subsistence allowance also, according to the workmen, the position is identical. The right to subsistence allowance is declared by the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. In fact, the workmen had been paid subsistence allowance, but less than what was due to them. When minimum wages are fixed, subsistence allowance also has to be calculated on the basis of minimum wages when wages paid to the workmen are at a rate less than the minimum, wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. When subsistence allowance is calculated on the basis of minimum wages, payment of the difference also can be enforced through proceedings under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the workmen would even contend that the payment of subsistence allowance itself can be enforced through proceedings under S.33C(2) as held by this Court in Karunakaran Nair v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. ( 1988 (2) KLT 136 ). Right for overtime wages is also statutorily fixed under S.7 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and that right can also be enforced through proceedings under S.33C(2), is the contention of the workmen. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in the light of the decisions cited before me. 6. At the outset, I must note that it cannot be the law that simply because the management disputes the right of the workmen for the benefit claimed, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under S.33C(2) is automatically ousted. That dispute must be a bona fide dispute, for deciding the bona fides of which dispute also the Labour Court has jurisdiction. So also, it is not correct to say that only those rights already adjudicated upon by a competent authority can be enforced under S.33C(2). That dispute must be a bona fide dispute, for deciding the bona fides of which dispute also the Labour Court has jurisdiction. So also, it is not correct to say that only those rights already adjudicated upon by a competent authority can be enforced under S.33C(2). Rights vested in workmen by operation of statutes are also existing rights, which can also be enforced by resort to jurisdiction under that Section, provided that no other jurisdictional fact needs to be adjudicated upon, before computing the monetary benefits of that right. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that for enforcing statutory rights also a workman should first go through the cumbersome procedure of raising an industrial dispute, getting it referred by the Government for adjudication to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and getting the dispute adjudicated by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, unless it is necessary to adjudicate upon a fact giving rise to that right like in the case where for computing retrenchment compensation it would be necessary to decide a disputed question as to whether there is retrenchment at all. When statute confers a benefit on the workman, and if that benefit can be computed in terms of money without adjudicating upon another jurisdictional fact relating to existence of that right, certainly the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the workman for computation of that benefit under S.33C(2). The decisions referred to by the counsel for the petitioner certainly lays down that proceedings under S.33C(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and that only existing right can be enforced under that Section. But, none of those decisions lay down a law that for enforcing a statutory right also, the workman has to first get the right adjudicated in an industrial dispute under S.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Right to be paid minimum wages is statutorily vested in employees working in notified industries, in respect of which industry the appropriate Government has fixed minimum wages by notification. Employers in such industries are statutorily bound to pay minimum wages so fixed. An employer who pays to an employee less than the minimum rates of wages to that employee’s class of work or less than the amount due to him under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act is liable for punishment, in appropriate cases even of imprisonment for six months, under S.22 of the Act. An employer who pays to an employee less than the minimum rates of wages to that employee’s class of work or less than the amount due to him under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act is liable for punishment, in appropriate cases even of imprisonment for six months, under S.22 of the Act. Therefore, right to get paid notified minimum wages is a right already vested in employees of notified industries, for claiming which, a separate adjudication by an authority is not necessary at all. That is a benefit which can be computed in terms of money, for recovery of which a petition under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would certainly lie, beyond shadow of any doubt, whatsoever. 7. Both in Ext. P2 written objections filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court and in the Writ Petition, the petitioner categorically admits that the petitioner’s establishment is covered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. It is a fact that the Government of Kerala has, by notification under the Minimum Wages Act, fixed minimum wages payable to employees of shops and commercial establishments. The employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the workmen involved are not disputed. The wages paid to the workmen can be easily ascertained from statutory records maintained by the petitioner. The rest is a simple process of computing the amounts due to the workmen by mere arithmetical calculation, the jurisdiction to do which cannot be denied to the Labour Court under S.33C(2), by any standard whatsoever, which in any event is in the nature of execution proceedings only, as contemplated by the decisions relied upon by the management themselves. 8. In the three decisions of this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the workmen, this Court has held that a claim for minimum wages is maintainable under S.33C(2) notwithstanding the fact that a machinery is provided under the Minimum Wages Act for enforcing payment of notified minimum wages by an employer and notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed under that Act for claiming minimum wages. Of course, the question canvassed in those decisions were as to whether a petition under S.33C(2) is maintainable in view of the fact that the Minimum Wages Act provides for a machinery for claiming the benefits under that Act. The first two decisions relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Co. Of course, the question canvassed in those decisions were as to whether a petition under S.33C(2) is maintainable in view of the fact that the Minimum Wages Act provides for a machinery for claiming the benefits under that Act. The first two decisions relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Co. v. Gopal Bhiva AIR 1964 SC 752 ). In that decision, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a claim in respect of amounts payable under the Payment of Wages Act is maintainable under S.33C(2). Ignoring the technical objection based on limitation in terms of Payment of Wages Act, the Supreme Court upheld the order made by the Labour Court under S.33C(2). After referring to that decision, Justice T. Kochu Thomman J. (as he then was), has in Hindi Prachar Press (supra), held that where in a case a claim under the Minimum Wages Act is barred and the order is not made appealable to any higher authority, under that Act, there is no taboo as such in law against an aggrieved employee approaching the authority invested with power under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. Without noticing the above decision, Justice M.P. Menon also came to the same conclusion in Vimal Printers (supra) on the same reasoning. In that case also, after noticing that in Bombay Gas Co. (supra) the Supreme Court upheld the right of an employee could resort to the remedy under S.33C(2) to claim wages under the Payment of Wages Act, although the problem of recovery of wages could also be tackled under the Payment of Wages Act, this Court held that the Minimum Wages Act is not a self contained code incorporating all the provisions relating to payment of wages, or even minimum wages, that the said Act discloses no intention that proceedings for payment of minimum wages shall be the exclusive preserve of the authority appointed under S.20 of the Act and that claims arising under the Act could also be tackled under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. Again, in Deepak Photos (supra), a Division Bench held thus in paragraph 4: “4. Finally it was argued that since a specific machinery is provided under the Minimum Wages Act, a petition under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be filed before the Labour Court. 10. Again, in Deepak Photos (supra), a Division Bench held thus in paragraph 4: “4. Finally it was argued that since a specific machinery is provided under the Minimum Wages Act, a petition under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be filed before the Labour Court. This issue was considered by this Court and the Apex Court in Hindi Prachar Press v. State of Kerala & Ors. ( 1982 KLT 285 ) and Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 520 ) and held that claim for minimum wages can be filed under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it is a benefit computable. Rates of minimum wages are fixed by notification and workers are entitled to receive the same as a legal right and service condition.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Although in those decisions, the question of jurisdiction as raised in this case was not directly raised, those decisions are authority for the proposition that a claim for minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act is maintainable under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 12. A claim for payment of subsistence allowance under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act also stands on the same footing. The right to be paid subsistence allowance as provided under that Act is a right vested in a suspended employee and there is a statutory obligation on the part of the employer to pay subsistence allowance to a suspended employee. In fact, the authorities under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act also only computes the amount of subsistence allowance payable under that Act, right for receiving which has already become vested in the employee as per the provisions of that Act. Contravention of the provisions of that Act is also punishable even with imprisonment up to three months, under S.8 thereof. That being so, the Labour Court cannot be denied the jurisdiction to compute the amounts due as subsistence allowance, the right for which has already crystallized under the Act. In Karunakaran Nair’s case (supra) Justice Kochu Thomman, J. (as he then was) held that a claim for subsistence allowance under the Kerala Subsistence Allowance Act is maintainable under S.33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 13. Moreover, in this case, the petitioner has already recognised the right of the workmen to receive subsistence allowance, by paying them subsistence allowance. In Karunakaran Nair’s case (supra) Justice Kochu Thomman, J. (as he then was) held that a claim for subsistence allowance under the Kerala Subsistence Allowance Act is maintainable under S.33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 13. Moreover, in this case, the petitioner has already recognised the right of the workmen to receive subsistence allowance, by paying them subsistence allowance. The dispute was only regarding the quantum. The workmen only claimed amount of subsistence allowance short paid when calculated on the basis of minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act. When a claim for minimum wages is maintainable under S.33C(2) and a claim for subsistence allowance under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is also maintainable under S.33C(2), it defies logic to deny jurisdiction to the Labour Court to compute the subsistence allowance short paid on calculation on the basis of the minimum wages payable to the workmen under the Minimum Wages Act. 14. Last comes the question of jurisdiction to consider the claim for overtime wages. This was not seriously argued by counsel for the petitioner, probably because claims for overtime wages are being entertained by Labour Courts in this State in claim petitions under S.33C(2) regularly. Right for payment of extra wages for overtime work is also guaranteed by S.7 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The days and hours of work of each workmen can be easily ascertained from statutory records maintained by the employer or by adducing evidence to take which the Labour Court has jurisdiction under S.33C(2). When the right has already crystallized by operation of the Act, ascertainment of the days and hours of work on evidence is only incidental to the power under S.33C(2). 15. Therefore, I hold that the Labour Court did have jurisdiction under S.33C(2) to decide all the three claims of the workmen involved. 16. The Counsel for the petitioner argued only the question of law on the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under S.33C(2) to decide the claims. No arguments were advanced disputing the quantum computed by the Labour Court. Therefore, I am spared of the task of dealing with that issue. In any event, I cannot, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, consider such questions of facts as a court of appeal. No arguments were advanced disputing the quantum computed by the Labour Court. Therefore, I am spared of the task of dealing with that issue. In any event, I cannot, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, consider such questions of facts as a court of appeal. In view of the above findings, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Labour Court impugned in these Writ Petitions. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.