( 1 ) RULE. Rule made returnable and heard finally. ( 2 ) NOTICE was issued for final disposal of the petition in view of the checkered career and the fact that the petitioner is a retired watchman, whose monetary dues are yet not satisfied. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an application for recovery of amount due from the employer under section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "m. R. T. U. and p. U. L. P. Act" ). The case of the petitioner is that his wages and legal dues have not been paid notwithstanding the decision rendered in his favour in Complaint (ULP) No. 3 of 1996 by the Industrial Court. He stated that the said complaint case was decided on 26-6-2002 and the claim for permanency status in the service and incidental benefits was granted. So, he was entitled to receive minimum wages from 1-1-1996 as per the said order. He sought recovery of Rs. 1,19,134/- found due from the respondent. ( 4 ) THE respondent (employer) appeared in the proceedings before the industrial Court. It was contended that the petitioner committed misconduct and, therefore, disciplinary action was initiated against him. It was further contended that services of the petitioner were terminated by following due process of law. It was further contended that during pendency of the proceedings before the Labour court, wherein the order of termination was challenged by the petitioner, he stood retired from the service on 10-8-2002. It was further contended that the petitioner was not entitled to receive any amount. It was nextly submitted that he has continued to occupy the residential accommodation without paying any rent. Therefore, the respondent sought dismissal of the application. ( 5 ) BY the impugned order dated 20-12-2007, the Industrial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the disputed claim could not be considered under the proceedings. The learned member of the Industrial Court held that unless exact amount is determined by the Court, which could be payable to the petitioner, the proceedings under section 50 could not be decided. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, therefore, dismissed the application with liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate Court for adjudication of the amount payable under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, therefore, dismissed the application with liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate Court for adjudication of the amount payable under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) MR. Ghuge would submit that the Industrial Court could have fixed the amount after due calculation of the minimum wages payable to the petitioner. He would submit that rent of the accommodation also could be fixed. He states that amount of Rs. 500/- per month could be reasonable rent for accommodation. He also makes a statement that if the claim of the petitioner is settled by the industrial Court, then within 30 days from such decision of the Industrial Court, the petitioner would vacate the premises. ( 8 ) THE learned Member of the Industrial Court referred to Shailendra Nath kartikechendra Ghose and Siemens India Ltd. , 1990 Mh. LJ. 947 = 1991 (62)FLR 511. In the given case, it was observed that it would not be open to the company to confuse the issue of their claim to receive back the possession of the company's flat with the claim of the employee to receive retirement benefits. The learned Member of the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that where there is dispute regarding the amount payable, the jurisdiction under section 50 could not be invoked. ( 9 ) IN Ultra Drytech Engineering Ltd. and another vs. Vaibhav Laxman suravkar and another, 2005 (1) Mh. LJ. 279, a Division Bench of this Court held that if the rights of the parties are already determined, the Industrial Court can undertake an exercise of simple arithmetic calculation under section 50 of the m. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. The plain reading of section 50 would make it amply clear that the Industrial Court is required to issue certificate if it is specified with any particular sum is due and the recovery thereof may be made by the Collector as if the amount due is an arrears of land revenue. The Industrial Court may take into account minimum wages payable during the relevant period. In Pioneer embroideries Ltd. vs. Prithvi Singh and others, 2009 (2) Mh. LJ. 701 = 2009 (2)Bom. The Industrial Court may take into account minimum wages payable during the relevant period. In Pioneer embroideries Ltd. vs. Prithvi Singh and others, 2009 (2) Mh. LJ. 701 = 2009 (2)Bom. C. R. 697, it has been held that vide section 33-C (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, the entitlement of the workers can be computed in terms of money even though the right or the benefit on which their claim is based, is disputed by their employers. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is not ousted only because of dispute is raised by the employer in relation to the amount sought to he recovered. Though indepth enquiry may not be necessary, yet computation of the money due can be done by the Industrial Court in view of the rates of minimum wages payable to the employee. The Industrial Court may also enquire about the market rate of the rent payable to the premises which are in possession of the petitioner so as to cause appropriate deduction of the amount of such rent for the period from which the petitioner is not in service till final adjudication of she sum. Considering these aspects, the impugned Judgment of the Industrial court is unsustainable. For, the learned Member of the Industrial Court abdicated the jurisdiction only because a dispute was raised by the employer regarding the quantum of minimum wages payable. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned Judgment is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Court with direction to restore the Misc. (ULP) No. 2 of 2005 to its original position and to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Petition allowed.