Judgment : 1. Heard both the parties and decided at the admission stage itself. All these Petitions heard finally by consent and can be disposed of by a common order as basic facts and the rival contentions on the issues are common in every aspect, except the name of concerned employee/Petitioner. The contesting Respondent is also common. 2. The challenge is made to the order dated 27th January, 2012, passed by the Ist Labour Court, Kolhapur, whereby rejected individual Applications filed under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”) for computation of alleged preferred monetary benefits from the Respondent Bank. 3. The Petitioners were employed by one Shri Mahavir Cooperative Bank Limited, Kolhapur (the Mahavir Bank) as employees. The service conditions of the employees in the Mahavir Bank, were governed by the settlement signed by the Bank with the Representative Union. The Mahavir Bank, vide resolution No.6 dated 23rd September, 1992, revised the pay scales of all the employees. The employees continued to receive the benefits for a considerable period. Since May 1995 the Mahavir Bank, unilaterally froze the benefits of all the employees due to financial problems but reserved their right to claim the benefits, immediately upon improvement of financial position of the Bank. 4. The Mahavir Bank came up with a voluntary retirement scheme for the employees in 1997 and the benefits under the said Scheme were declared on the basis of the frozen pay scale and allowances but the employees opting for said VRS were made eligible to claim the arrears of the frozen benefits upon improvement of Bank's financial condition. 5. Few employees who opted for VRS but were not paid the benefits as well as the arrears of frozen benefits, approached the Labour Court, Kolhapur with individual applications and claimed the said benefits with interest. The Mahavir Bank opposed the claims and applications. The Labour Court vide common order dated 17th November, 2000 allowed the applications holding that the Mahavir Bank is liable to pay the frozen dearness allowance and other benefits to the employees with 18% interest. The Mahavir Bank challenged the order. The High Court rejected the Writ Petition by order dated 22nd February, 2002. The Mahavir Bank challenged the order. The Latter's Patent Appeal was also dismissed by order dated 22nd October, 2001. The Mahavir Bank challenged the order. The High Court rejected the Writ Petition by order dated 22nd February, 2002. The Mahavir Bank challenged the order. The Latter's Patent Appeal was also dismissed by order dated 22nd October, 2001. The Mahavir Bank filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The Mahavir Bank resolved to amalgamate with the Respondent Bank and with effect from 4th September, 2006, the Mahavir Bank stood merged with the Respondent Bank. By virtue of the amalgamation Scheme all rights, powers, claims, demands, authorities, privileges, benefits, assets and properties as well as all liabilities, duties, obligations of the Mahavir Bank stood transferred to the Respondent Bank. The Scheme further provided that on the said date any suit, appeal or other legal proceedings of whatever nature by or against the Mahavir Bank were not to be abated but were to be prosecuted, defended by the Respondent Bank. 7. The Respondent sought intervention in the Appeal filed by the Mahavir Bank in the Supreme Court. The same was dismissed on 1st May, 2008. The Respondent Bank then filed a Review Petition before this High Court in the disposed of Writ Petition filed by the Mahavir Bank. However, by order dated 17th November, 2008, the High Court rejected the same. The order was never challenged by the Respondent Bank. 8. The 35 employees who opted for VRS with the erstwhile Mahavir Bank got the benefits arising of the earlier order passed by the Ld. Labour Court and the order was implemented by the Respondent Bank. 9. The Petitioners claiming to be a similarly placed employees and enjoying the benefit of the rise given by the Mahavir Bank since 1992 which was later denied on the ground of financial crunch. The Petitioners filed Applications even prior to the amalgamation before Labour Court, Kolhapur, against the Mahavir Bank. The Respondent Bank got itself impleaded in place of the Mahavir Bank after amalgamation scheme was sanctioned and implemented. 10. The Mahavir Bank initially filed its written statement and set out the financial difficulties it faced, the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India and the reasons for declaring VRS for employees. In a way opposed the demand inspite of alleged settlement. 11. The Respondent Bank filed a written statement denied the claims and contended it to be untenable. The Petitioners lead evidence and was cross-examined by the Respondent. In a way opposed the demand inspite of alleged settlement. 11. The Respondent Bank filed a written statement denied the claims and contended it to be untenable. The Petitioners lead evidence and was cross-examined by the Respondent. The Respondent Bank also examined their witnesses. 12. The learned Labour Court dismissed the individual Petitioner's Applications along with all the other 96 matters, but by separate impugned order dated 31st December, 2012 (33 matters) and on 27th January, 2012 (64 matters). 13. The learned Labour Court held that to compute amount under Section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the claim should be based upon preexisting right and the Petitioner had not mentioned what was the exact wage and what actually received from the Bank. According to the Learned Labour Court, there is no preexisting right Hence, the present Writ Petitions. 14. Admittedly, the Petitioners were not in service of Respondent Bank. They were working with the Mahavir Bank. The employees demands were ultimately recorded in following terms. “Other Language” 15. It is clear that the right was provided to demand the amount to the ex-employees like Petitioners but it was subject to the improved financial condition of the Bank. The amount as claimed was neverc determined or crystallized. The financial position was never improved of the Mahavir Bank. For various reasons, the said amount could not be paid. Therefore, the Petitioners filed the independent applications under Section 33(c) (2) of the I.D. Act. Admittedly, the Mahavir Bank even at that time though agreed had objected and contested the matters. Therefore, at no point of time, the amount claimed was accepted by the Banks. However, the order was passed in the matter of some of the similarly situated Petitioners. The orders remained intact. By order dated 1st May, 2008, the Special Leave Petition filed by the Bank's was also dismissed with the following observation: “.... However, we make it clear that this order shall not prevent the appellant from challenging the original order, if not already challenged in the meantime. Interim order, if any shall stand vacated.” 16. Admittedly, financial position of Mahavir Cooperative Bank was the issue which compel it to accept and finalize the scheme of amalgamation. The relevant portion of the amalgamation is as under: “(2)... Interim order, if any shall stand vacated.” 16. Admittedly, financial position of Mahavir Cooperative Bank was the issue which compel it to accept and finalize the scheme of amalgamation. The relevant portion of the amalgamation is as under: “(2)... shall , subject to the other provisions of this scheme, transferred to and become the properties and assets of the “TRANSFEREE BANK” and as from the said date, all the liabilities, duties and obligations of the “TRANSFEROR BANK”, shall be and shall become the liabilities, duties and obligations of the “TRANSFEREE BANK”, to the extent and in the manner provided hereafter.” “If on the said date, any suit, appeal or other legal proceeding of whatever nature by or against the Transferor Bank is pending; the same shall not abate, or be discontinued or be in any way prejudicially affected, but shall, subject to the other provisions of this order, be prosecuted and enforced by or against the Transferee Bank.” 17. Admittedly, all the liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferor Bank (The Mahavir Bank) has been taken by the transferee Bank i.e. the Respondent Bank. 19 The contentions, therefore, that the Respondent Bank in view of the order passed by the Court in earlier matters of similarly situated employees read with the order passed by the Supreme Court should cover the cases of all the Petitioners in question, and even as per the scheme as it covers the liabilities and/or obligations of the Mahavir Bank, therefore there is no question of fresh determination of any dispute with regard to the amount and/or preexisting right. All their respective applications reflect details of their claims arising out of the settlement with the earlier Bank. Therefore, there was no question of any dispute with regard to any liabilities. The amount being crystallized and ought to have granted by the Labour Court under Section 32 (2) of the I.D. Act. 20. Whatever earlier litigations between the parties and basically between the similar situated employees and the Mahavir Bank cannot be equated with the rights and obligations of the Petitioner and the Respondent Bank in view of the terms of the settlement and the fact of contest even by the Mahavir Bank. The acceptance of liabilities and/or obligations that in no way can be stated to be debarred the subsequent transferee Bank Respondent to raise whatever objections available under the law. 18. The acceptance of liabilities and/or obligations that in no way can be stated to be debarred the subsequent transferee Bank Respondent to raise whatever objections available under the law. 18. Admittedly, inspite of the so called settlement, the Mahavir Bank even at the relevant time not acceded to the demand so raised. They objected the claim of similarly situated employees. Merely because some of the matters attained finality in view of the orders passed by the High Court, when admittedly at that time the Respondent Bank was not in picture, at initial stages. Subsequently, they did challenge the same order by filing Review, and or the intervention application in SLP in the Supreme Court, that in no way sufficient to say that the amount so claimed by the Petitioners is also crystallized and binds the present Respondent Bank. Admittedly, the Respondent Bank, as parties, proceeded before the Labour Court and placed their submissions and material by leading respective evidence. It is settled that the purpose and object of leading evidence under Section 33 (c)(2) of the said Act is quite limited and summary in nature. But whether frivolous defence is raised to deny the liability of the alleged preexisting right, can be tested. The complex and various such disputed facts can not be decided in such proceedings. The present case falls in this complicated area of facts and the law. In the present facts and circumstances, in view of the above admitted position on record, the leading of evidence, no way to wash out the undisputed position on record and the rights of subsequent purchaser i.e. Respondent No.1/transferee Bank, to raise objections to the Applications so filed. The Court by giving detail reasons, even considering the rival pleas, has rejected these Applications. This in no way, can be stated to be perverse and/or illegal. This is well within the purview of law as well as the record of the present matter. 19. The term itself permits the employees to raised the demand of the amount, but it was subject to improved financial condition. There was no determined and fixed commitment to make such payment. The entitlement to claim can not be equated with crystalised amount as sought to be contended by the Petitioners. In my view, amount was never determined and finalised. Therefore, such claim can not be adjudicated in such summary proceedings. The remedy is elsewhere. There was no determined and fixed commitment to make such payment. The entitlement to claim can not be equated with crystalised amount as sought to be contended by the Petitioners. In my view, amount was never determined and finalised. Therefore, such claim can not be adjudicated in such summary proceedings. The remedy is elsewhere. I am not inclined to interfere with the reasoned order, as the amount was never admitted or crystalised earlier and or determinable first time in this proceeding. 20. It cannot be accepted as only incidental issue or inquiry. It goes to the root. The financial condition of the Mahavir Bank was never improved during its existence. It cannot be stated to be an application for execution of actual figured amount. The Court under Section 33 (2)(c) of the I.D. Act has no power to adjudicate the claim for the first time and then grant the same at the same stroke, as executing Court. 21. I am not inclined to accept the contention that it was a case of only interpretation of order of earlier orders and the doubtful settlement terms, which itself only created right to demand, from the Mahavir Bank subject to improved financial position. No financial improvement; no right to demand such payment. It cannot be stated to be case of recovery of settled arrears/ dues only. I am not inclined to accept the case of existence of right. The conditional right to raise demand, was subject to the financial improvement of the Mahavir Bank and not of the Respondent Bank. 22. Therefore, when there are serious doubts and disputes raised with regard to the liabilities and so called obligations of the earlier Bank i.e. Mahavir Bank; there is no question of considering the same under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the rejection of such applications need no interfere. All the Petitions are accordingly dismissed. 23. This in no way, be treated as denial of the Petitioner's right to take out appropriate steps in accordance with law to claim and get their dues settled, if available. 24. Parties are at liberty to settle the matters. 25. All the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.