JUDGMENT These two Writ Petitions are disposed of through this common order as the same question is raised in both the cases. The second respondent-Industrial Tribunal –cum-Labour Court passed order in M.P.No. 26 of 1996 on 28.9.1999, which is challenged through W.P.No. 22604 of 2000. The order of the Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court in M.P.No. 27 of 1996 dated 28.9.1999 is challenged through W.P.No. 22685 of 2000. In both the cases, the Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court- second respondent ordered the petitioners to pay Rs. 50,954/- to the first respondent in each of the cases towards monetary benefit on account of regularisation holding that they are deemed to have been regularised with effect from 18.2.1984 and not from 1.3.1987. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited was closed on 30.6.1983. The first respondent in each of the cases were workmen, were working as employees of the Corporation although they had been appointed by the now defunct A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited on 18.2.1982. It would appear that the respondents were initially appointed in 1977 and were retrenched in 1979. It also would appear that considering that- the very retrenchment was not permissible, the Corporation reinstated both the workman with effect from 18.2.1982. 3. The Corporation issued proceedings on 30.7.1981 ordering that the employees who were in service of the Corporation as on 30.7.1981 would be regularised one year from 30.7.1981 i.e., from 1.8.1982 and that for those employees who joined subsequent to 30.7.1981, their services would be regularised at the end of two years period from the date of the commencement of their service. The workmen consequently would be entitled the regularisation of their services with effect from 18.2.1984. 4. While so, on 25.2.1983, the then Senior Deputy Manager of the now defunct Corporation issued proceedings regularising the services of both the workmen with effect from 18.2.1983 subject to approval of Head Office. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation that the regularisation of the workmen with effect from 18.2.1983 was never approved by the Managing Director of the then existing Corporation. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation that the regularisation of the workmen with effect from 18.2.1983 was never approved by the Managing Director of the then existing Corporation. When the Corporation became defunct, orders were passed in G. GOVINDA RAJULU V THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED ( AIR 1987 SC 1801 )that the services of the employees of the A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited shall be continued on the same terms and conditions either in the Government Department or in Government Corporations. Consequently, the workmen of the Corporation including the first respondent in each of the cases herein, were absorbed by the petitioners. The petitioners issued proceedings on 29.11.1990 regularising the services of the workmen with effect from 1.3.1987 on completion of five years of service from the initial date of appointment. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the workmen accepted the regularisation and kept quite for a period of six years. 5. However, the two workmen raised M.P. Nos. 26 of 1996 and 27 of 1996 under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming monetary benefit on the ground that they were regularised with effect from 18.2.1983. 6. The learned Government Pleader contended that the order of regularisation of the services of the workmen was subject to approval of the Managing Director and that as the Managing Director never approved the regularisation, the workmen would not be considered to have been regularised with effect from 18.2.1983. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workmen contended that the regularisation orders passed by the Senior Deputy General Manager were never annulled, cancelled or modified and that those orders have still been in force. He also submitted that this fact had not been taken note of by the Tribunal while passing orders directing the petitioners to make appointments. The learned counsel for the workmen further pointed out that although the regularisation of workmen with effect from 18.2.1983, the orders clearly directed that monetary benefits should be given to the regularisation orders with effect from 18.2.1984. Thus whether the order is that the workmen were deemed to have been regularised with effect from 18.2.1983 or 18.2.1984, in effect, their regularisation was with effect from 18.12.1984 only. The workmen consequently claimed the monetary benefit with effect from 18.2.1984 till 31.3.1986 calculating the same at Rs. 50,954/-. Thus whether the order is that the workmen were deemed to have been regularised with effect from 18.2.1983 or 18.2.1984, in effect, their regularisation was with effect from 18.12.1984 only. The workmen consequently claimed the monetary benefit with effect from 18.2.1984 till 31.3.1986 calculating the same at Rs. 50,954/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the workmen that the workmen are entitled to receive the same. 7. The learned Government Pleader raised a contention that the very application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. He contended that there must be a predetermined right to be executed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon M/S PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT LTD VS SURESH CHAND ( (1978) 2 SCC 144 ), where the Supreme Court pointed out as under: “It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) to arrogate to itself the functions of an industrial tribunal and entertain a claim which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the Act.” 8. This view of the Supreme Court had been approved in THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD., VS. P.S. RAJAGOPALAN ( AIR 1964 SC 743 ). The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 16 as follows: “In our opinion on a fair and reasonable construction of Sub-Section 2 it is clear that if a workman’s right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may have to be determined by the Labour Court. Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of money the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that benefit. If the said right is not disputed, nothing more needs to be done and the Labour Court can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in terms of money; but if the said right is disputed, the Labour Court must deal with that question and decide whether the workman has the right to receive the benefit as alleged by him and it is only if the Labour Court answers this point in favour of the workman that the next question of making necessary computation can arise.” 9. It is clear from the view expressed by the Supreme Court that if there a dispute as to the very liability of the Management, that is to be resolved by the Labour Court in the petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and then shall order return the amount payable to the workman. I, therefore, consider that the Labour Court should not have rejected the petitions on the ground that there was no pre-determined right for the Labour Court to entertain the miscellaneous petitions. 10. The next question is whether workmen were entitled to be regularised with effect from 18.2.1983 with monetary benefit from 18.2.1984 or with effect from 1.3.1987. In S.S. NARAYANA VS. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, ADILABAD (2003 (3) ALD 13), the Court observed that if a workman had already been regularised, if he had been removed from service and had been reinstated into service thereafter through orders of the Court, his services cannot once again be regularised as a fresh candidate since the regularisation on the earlier occasion holds good. So far as the workmen are concerned, when their services were regularised with effect from 18.2.1983 with monetary benefit from 18.2.1984, I am afraid that their services cannot once again be regularised with effect from 1.3.1987. The learned Government Pleader contended in this context that the regularisation of the workmen through proceedings dated 25.2.1983 was that regularisation was subject to approval of the Managing Director of the erstwhile Corporation. I had already pointed out that the Managing Director did not annul, modify or cancel the order. Consequently, the orders of regularisation passed through proceedings dated 25.2.1983 hold good. The order of the Tribunal in holding that the workmen are entitled to receive Rs. 50,954/- each is justified and does not require to be interfered with. 11. Consequently, I see no merits in these two Writ Petitions and accordingly, these two Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in these two Writ Petitions, shall also stand closed.