JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 28.12.2006 in LCA No. 245/96 in proceedings initiated under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was engaged as a messenger with effect from 8.4.1985 in the establishment of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank-respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and that inspite of the fact that he was engaged as a full time messenger he was only being paid salary of a part time messenger. The petitioner represented several times to the Bank for being paid full time salary of a messenger but no action was taken by the Bank. However, he was nevertheless declared a full time messenger with effect from 1.10.1992 vide order dated 28.10.1992. 3. It has also been stated that certain writ petitions were filed by the Association of Regional Rural Bank Employees before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of those writ petitions by order dated 1.9.1987 in the following terms: “We are happy to know that the Central Government had agreed to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional Banks Act 1976. The learned counsel for the petitioners also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed Tribunal in view of the above, it is not necessary to pronounce on the questions of law raised in these writ petitions before us. We leave all the contentions. The Central Government shall refer the dispute to the Tribunal preferable to a retired Chief Justice of High Court within four weeks from today. We hope that the Tribunal will pronounce its award as expeditiously as possible. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.” As per the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Central Government constituted a Tribunal headed by a retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court as Chairman of the National Industrial Tribunal and referred the dispute to the said Tribunal. The disputes referred to the Tribunal related to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. The disputes referred to the Tribunal related to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. The Tribunal gave its Award on April, 30, 1990 wherein the Tribunal held that upto 31.8.1987 the employees of the Regional Rural Banks should be extended the pay scale and allowance as are admissible to the State Government employees in co-operable posts and status and with effect from September, 1, 1987 the said employees will be entitled to pay scales, allowances and other benefits at par with the employees of comparable levels in corresponding post of respective sponsor Banks. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further directed that the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal shall be treated as an Award of a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it will be open to the employees of Regional Rural Banks irrespective of the fact whether they fall within the ambit of the expression ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not, to seek their remedies for implementation of the Award in respect of those matters before the appropriate Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. 4. Accordingly in terms of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Award given by the National Industrial Tribunal be treated as an Award of a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner filed a claim application being LCA No. 245 of 1996 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. 5. I have heard Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Despite the orders of this Court dated 27.8.2008 and 15.12.2011 no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank nor the counsel for the respondent Bank appeared, even though the case has been called out in the revised list today. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to proceed to decide the matter finally. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a full time messenger in the Bank with effect from 8.4.1985 and he has been working continuously since then but he was only paid salary treating him to be a part time messenger. However, by an order dated 28.10.1992 the petitioner was declared as a full time messenger by the Bank with effect from 1.10.1992. However, by an order dated 28.10.1992 the petitioner was declared as a full time messenger by the Bank with effect from 1.10.1992. It has further been submitted that under the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated September, 1, 1987, passed in the petitions filed by All India Regional Rural Banks Employees Association and All India Gramin Bank Workers Organization representing the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, a National industrial Tribunal was constituted by the Central Government presided over by a retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court as its Chairman. The said National Industrial Tribunal submitted its Award on April, 30, 1990 and held that upto August, 1987 the employees of the Regional Rural Banks should be extended the pay scales and allowance as are admissible to the State Government employees in co-operable posts and status and with effect from 1.9.1987 the said employees shall be entitled to pay scale and allowances and other benefits at Par with the employees of the comparable levels in corresponding post of respective sponsor Bank. It has further been submitted that the directions given in the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Court directed that the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal be treated as an Award of a Tribunal under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and a further direction was given that it would be open for the employees of the Regional Rural Banks irrespective of the fact whether they fall within the ambit of the expression ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not, to seek their remedies for implementation of award in respect of those matters before the appropriate Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the petitioner filed a claim petition being LCA No. 245 of 1996 Mahesh Prasad Agnihotri v. Chhatrasal Gramin Bank (now known as Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank), claiming arrears as mentioned in paragraph 8,9,10 and 11 of his claim petition, filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Opposing the claim petition a written statement was filed on behalf of the Bank wherein a preliminary objection was taken that the application under Section 33C(2) was not maintainable since the scope of the provisions of Section 33C(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings. Opposing the claim petition a written statement was filed on behalf of the Bank wherein a preliminary objection was taken that the application under Section 33C(2) was not maintainable since the scope of the provisions of Section 33C(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings. However, it was not disputed that the petitioner had been initially engaged as temporary part time daily wages messenger with effect from 8.4.1985 at Rs. 10/- per day and his working hours were from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. from Monday to Friday and from 10 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday. It was also not disputed that the award of the National Industrial Tribunal was accepted by the Government of India on 22.2.1991 and the petitioner, as a result thereof, was designated as full time regular messenger and was accordingly paid 50% of the wages payable to the regular messenger. It was also admitted that he was designated as regular messenger with effect from 1.10.1992. In paragraph 7 of the written statement it was also stated that all the Regional Rural Banks were directed by NABARD to implement the National Industrial Tribunal Award as per Government of India guidelines and Working Group Report on Regional Rural Banks dated 17.2.1992. 7. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Kanpur however, rejected the claim application of the petitioner on 28.12.2006 on the sole ground that the petitioner by taking recourse to proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is first creating a right in his favour to receive the amount on the basis of the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal which has not been granted to him by the Bank and his right to any amount is first to be determined by the Labour Court in a reference made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. I have gone through the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur and in my opinion the Tribunal has completely erred in holding that proceedings under Section 33C(2) were not maintainable and that the rights of the petitioner were first required to be determined in a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. I have gone through the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur and in my opinion the Tribunal has completely erred in holding that proceedings under Section 33C(2) were not maintainable and that the rights of the petitioner were first required to be determined in a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal has failed to notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated April, 12, 1996 had directed that the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal be treated as an Award of a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it will be open to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks irrespective of the fact whether they fall within the ambit of the expression ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not, to seek their remedies for implementation of the Award in respect of those matters before the appropriate Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. Thus the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal itself being an Award under the Industrial Disputes Act and by the terms of the award certain claims of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks had been settled, as find mention in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself, the only course left for the petitioner was to have approached the Labour Court under an application under Section 33C(2). 10. Even otherwise the claims put forward by the petitioner in his application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was for payment of certain amounts as enumerated in paragraphs 8,9,10 and 11 of the claim petition and therefore, these amounts were benefits which could have been computed in terms of money by the Labour Court under the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the above in my opinion the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal is not sustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for computation of the amounts claimed by the petitioner on merits strictly in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Bank. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. ———————