Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order passed by the second respondent Labour Court in C.P.No.96 of 2002 dated 16.11.2011. The said claim petition was dismissed by the second respondent Labour Court as there was no pre-existing right regarding grant of backwages and that the claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable. 2. When the matter came up on 01.02.2012, this Court directed Ms.G.Thilakavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Sugar Mill to get instructions from the respondent. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel filed a counter affidavit signed by the first respondent dated 22.02.2012. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.G.Thilakavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner's claim for backwages is maintainable. It is seen from the records the petitioner was dismissed by the first respondent Management. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and that was referred for adjudication by the State Government by the Additional Labour Officer, Chennai. The dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.471 of 1985. The Labour Court passed an Award on 27.01.1989 and dismissed the Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court held that non-employment of the petitioner was justified and he was not entitled for any relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. 5. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.2949 of 1996. The writ petition was partly allowed by this Court by an order dated 17.04.2002. This Court in paragraph 7 held as follows:- "7. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service. With regard to back wages and other benefits, the question is left open in view of fact that in the evidence of M.W.3 it is stated that after dismissal, the petitioner is working in a Homeopathy Hospital. It is also open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in this regard in a manner known to law." 6. Subsequent to the judgment passed by this Court, the first respondent Management filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.2708 of 2002 challenging that portion of the order by which the petitioner was granted reinstatement. It is also open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in this regard in a manner known to law." 6. Subsequent to the judgment passed by this Court, the first respondent Management filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.2708 of 2002 challenging that portion of the order by which the petitioner was granted reinstatement. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by an order dated 04.01.2008. Undaunted by the dismissal of the writ appeal, the Management went on appeal to the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil).../2008 (Diary No.12634 of 2008). The Supreme Court by an order dated 19.09.2008 dismissed the SLP, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Judge as final. 7. Subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court, it transpires that the petitioner was reinstated in service and paid wages from the date on which the writ petition was partly allowed viz., 17.04.2002. He was also paid arrears of salary of Rs.4,43,147.50 plus Rs.1,376.90. Apart from that, arrears of Rs.222/- and bonus arrears of Rs.25,800/-, salary arrears of Rs.40,978/- and goodwill amount of Rs.17,333/-, altogether a sum of Rs.5,41,248.40 was paid to the petitioner. 8. After partial allowing of the writ petition, which was confirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court having dismissed the SLP, the petitioner did not institute appropriate proceedings for claiming that portion of the entitlement for back wages. On the other hand, he moved the Labour Court with a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act claiming salary for the period from 17.04.2002 till 14.12.2008, totally claiming a sum of Rs.7,24,060/- by a petition dated 09.09.2002. The said petition was filed subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition. The petition was numbered as C.P.No.96 of 2002 and notice was ordered to the Management The Management filed a counter statement denying the right of the workman to get back wages. 9. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, he had examined himself as P.W.1 and on his side, six documents were filed and marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the Management, S.Sundaramoorthy, Assistant Godown Keeper was examined as R.W.1 and M.Ramalingam, Senior Clerk was examined as R.W.2. On their side, two documents were filed and marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 10. On the side of the Management, S.Sundaramoorthy, Assistant Godown Keeper was examined as R.W.1 and M.Ramalingam, Senior Clerk was examined as R.W.2. On their side, two documents were filed and marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 10. The Labour Court on the basis of materials placed before it came to the conclusion that since the learned Judge who reversed the Award of the Labour Court did not grant the benefit of any backwages and the petitioner not having challenged that portion of the order by filing any cross appeal and there being no pre-existing right regarding the back wages, the claim petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. 11. Assailing the Award, Mr.R.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N.1073 [Rajendra Bhagat and others v. Labour Court, Ranchi and another]for contending that during the period of non-employment, doing odd jobs would not amount to gainful employment so as to deny wages for the period of non-employment. 12. The learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Constitution Bench reported in (2002) 2 SCC 244 [Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., v. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others]without making any relevance to the case on hand. That was the case where approval under Section 33-2(b) of the I.D.Act was not obtained by the Management and the Supreme Court held that the provision for seeking approval is mandatory and not obtaining approval would amount to order of non-employment being void ab initio and in such circumstances workman need not even lodge a complaint or raise a dispute and he can claim wages as if he was not sent out of service. 13. In the present case, it is not as if this Court while reversing the Award passed by the Labour Court while granting relief of reinstatement remitted the matter relating to that portion regarding entitlement to get back wages for fresh consideration by the Labour Court. If at all the counsel for the workman should have got appropriate clarification from the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, he initiated independent proceedings for claiming back wages without challenge to the denial of back wages by this Court. If at all the counsel for the workman should have got appropriate clarification from the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, he initiated independent proceedings for claiming back wages without challenge to the denial of back wages by this Court. In the absence of any entitlement for grant of back wages either by the Labour Court or by this Court the petitioner cannot presume that he is entitled for back wages. On the other hand, serious doubts were raised regarding his employment during the period of non-employment. It was on that score this Court declined to grant back wages. It must be noted that while computing amounts under Section 33-C(2), the Labour Court acts more or less akin to an executing Court and while discharging the functions of an executing Court, the Court cannot interpret an Award. In the present case, not only the Award did not give him the benefit, but while upsetting the Award, this Court did not expressly grant him back wages. 14. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Indian Toursim Development Corporation v. Labour Court and othersreported in 1987 2 LLJ 190.In paragraphs 13 and 14, it was held as follows:- "13.It is true that the Labour Court in the exercise of power vested in it under S.33C(2) is discharging the functions of an executing Court and therefore is competent to interpret the settlement or the award on which the workman bases his claims. But the said power under S.33C(2) does not empower the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement where a dispute arises in that regard between the workman and the employer. It should in this context be remembered that the power given to the Labour Court under S.33C(2) empowers the Labour Court to enable the workman to execute or implement his existing individual undisputed rights arising under an award or settlement. But where a dispute between the workman and the employer arises in regard to the interpretation of any provisions of the award or settlement, the said dispute can be resolved only by following the procedure prescribed under S.36 A. 14. From the facts stated supra it is clear that there is no agreement between the employer and the employee, regarding the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the settlement. From the facts stated supra it is clear that there is no agreement between the employer and the employee, regarding the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the settlement. If that be so, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court erred in entertaining the petition of respondents 2 and 3 under S.33C (2) requires to be upheld." 15. In view of the above, there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.