ORDER Gulab Singh Solanki, J. 1. This order shall dispose of W.P. No. 5778/2009 The Registrar, J.N.K.V.V. Jabalpur and Anr. v. Sudarshan Singh, W.P. No. 5780/2009 The Registrar, J.N.K.V.V. Jabalpur and Anr. v. Shrikant Mishra, W.P. No. 5781/2009 The Registrar, J.N.K.V.V. Jabalpur and Anr. v. Suresh Kharate and W.P. No. 5782/2009 The Registrar, J.N.K.V.V. Jabalpur and Anr. v. Pancham Singh Thakur. 2. The common question for decision in the above mentioned petitions is the maintainability of the claim of respondent in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'). 3. The facts of the case in short are that all the respondents are daily wages workers of the petitioner/Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur which is a statutory educational institute of higher learning and has been created under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1963. The object of the aforesaid Agriculture University is to provide educational facilities to the students of higher learning in the agriculture, veterinary science and allied subjects including the research on said subjects. The University also undertakes research work on the projects basis sponsored by various agencies. The University in order to operate the aforesaid projects has to employ agriculture labours. Not only this but for various reasons these daily wages agriculture labours were employed for the research projects work. These labours are employed not for complete months but only for few days in a month depending on availability of work and funds. These labours are paid their wages on the basis of notifications issued by Labour Commissioner under the provision of Minimum Wages Act 1948. A copy of the order dated 23.5.1995 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur is filed as AnnexureP/2. Whereas a copy of another notification dated 10.12.1996 issued by Additional Collector, Jabalpur is filed as Annexure P/3. 4. It is claimed that according to the above mentioned notification, full wages are required to be paid if the labour has worked for a minimum period of 26 days. It is further provided in the notification that if a labour has worked for less than 26 days in a month then his daily rate of the wage is required to be included by dividing monthly fixed wages by figure of 30 days. 5. It is further provided in the notification that if a labour has worked for less than 26 days in a month then his daily rate of the wage is required to be included by dividing monthly fixed wages by figure of 30 days. 5. The respondents filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of wages on the pretext that some settlement was arrived. In fact there was no such agreement or settlement. It is also pleaded that petitioner specifically assailed the jurisdiction of Labour Court to entertain the application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act 1947 on the ground that Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain petition in respect of disputed claims and also no prior adjudication on the claim. Yet Labour Court has interfered by recording perverse finding and neglecting the above preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995 (1) SCC 235 , Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another. 6. The main contention raised by the respondent before the Labour Court was that the calculation of one day wages is by dividing the figure of fix monthly wages by 26 days but the petitioner/University was dividing the same by 30 days. Thus the claim of respondent was that four days salary was less paid. 7. The dispute was that to calculate one day salary whether month salary should be divided by 26 days or 30 days. It is pleaded that petitioner/University was implementing the aforesaid calculation and the daily wagers those who have performed minimum 26 days in a month were paid full fixed month salary, whereas the persons who worked for less than 26 days in a month have been paid their salaries on the basis of daily rate of wages arrived by dividing the fixed month salary by 30 days as per notification. The respondent has painted a confusing picture and learned Labour Court has blindly directed payment of Rs. 18,851/ without applying the mind as to how figures has been calculated. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court cannot direct payment of the amount which is required to be adjudicated under provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1947. According to him, there was no settlement about the amount, therefore, the award passed by Labour Court is without jurisdiction. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court cannot direct payment of the amount which is required to be adjudicated under provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1947. According to him, there was no settlement about the amount, therefore, the award passed by Labour Court is without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of 1995 (1) SCC 235 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. 9. We have perused the impugned order dated 30.3.2009 (AnnexureP/1), order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur dated 23.5.1995 (AnnexureP/2) and order of the Collector, Jabalpur dated 12.12.1996 (AnnexureP/3). Order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur dated 23.5.1995 reveals that there was settlement during conciliation proceeding between the daily wagers/respondents and University/petitioner and he wrote a letter (AnnexureP/2) to the Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. This fact itself shows that there was a settlement during conciliation. The letter of Collector, Jabalpur dated 12.12.96 (AnnexureP/3) also reveals that calculation of wages of daily wagers be made by dividing with figure 30 instead of figure 26, so they may get wages of holidays. 10. In this situation by passing the impugned order dated 30.3.2009, learned Labour Court only interpreted the settlement, on which the claim of respondents was based, therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court adjudicated the dispute of entitlement of claim of respondent. 11. The facts of the case, relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) was not identical to the fact of the case of the respondents. In that case there was no earlier adjudication or settlement of claim or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement was not incidental to the benefit claimed and was, therefore found, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. But in this case there was a settlement during conciliation, therefore, in our considered opinion, there is no any illegality or jurisdictional irregularity committed by the Labour Court in passing the impugned order dated 30.3.2009, warranting our interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. We do not find any merit in the case. The petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed at motion hearing stage, without notice to the respondent, with no order as to cost.