Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally. The petitioner in this writ petition assails an award dated 05/03/2010 delivered by the learned Labour Court, Latur on an application filed by the respondent u/s. 33(C)(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). It was the contention of the respondent that he was engaged as a Driver on a car bearing registration no.MH-24-2781 which was jointly owned by the petitioner’s family. It was further contended that he had so worked from Diwali 2003 to Diwali 2004 for the said family. It was claimed that his monthly wages were unpaid for the said period, which finally accumulated to approximately Rs.38,000/-. The other contentions in his application are not germane at this stage. 2. The petitioner, in response to the said claim before the learned Labour Court, had taken a stand that the respondent was employed for maintenance of garden and that the said car was owned by Mrs.Rajkumari Lohiya, who is the wife of the proprietor of the Firm Lohiya Agro Industries. It is an admitted position that Lohiya Agro Industries was not impleaded as a respondent in the Court below. The said application I.D.A.No.1/2005 was allowed by the impugned award dated 05/03/2010 and the petitioner herein was directed to pay an amount of Rs.38,000/- as unpaid salary alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the application and with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 3. It is an admitted position in light of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties that the said car belongs to Mrs.Lohiya. However, the respondent herein contended that the car was owned by the family. In proceedings u/s. 33(C)(2) of The Act, like the present one, if basic questions are raised as to whether there was an employment given to the respondent employee, whether employer employee relationship exists between the parties and as to whether the petitioner herein could be termed as an industry, they need to be adjudicated upon. Learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that an issue as regards such relationship, status of the respondent as a workman and the petitioner being an industry was not framed, despite pleadings to that effect. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that an issue as regards such relationship, status of the respondent as a workman and the petitioner being an industry was not framed, despite pleadings to that effect. 4. This Court has recently concluded in National Textile Corporation (WR) Ltd., [formerly known as PoddarMills (UC)] Vs.Ravindra Ramchandra Gavade and others, reported at 2013 III CLR 356, that a claim of a workman u/s. 33(C)(2) capable of being computed in terms of money, can be adjudicated by the Labour Court. In 2012 I CLR 818, Vishnu Kumar Mangala Case, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and similarly the Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.NarsimhaReddy S/o.Bali Reddy and another Vs/.Management A.D.Dairy Dev.Co.op.Fed Ltd., reported at 2013 I CLR 117, have concluded that when the basis of a claim is disputed, the claim could be outside the scope of Section 33(C)(2). 5. As such, in the light of the contentious issues, unless the issue of the status of the parties and the relationship between the parties is decided, the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court and the applicability of section 33(C)(2) of the Act would be in question. Having not dealt with these material aspects by the Labour Court, the impugned award is unsustainable. Both the parties have fairly stated that if a direction to the Labour Court to cast an issue to that extent is given, they are willing to go before the learned Labour Court restricting themselves to leading further evidence only on this issue. I find that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned award is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court, Latur for framing an issue as stated above and giving the parties an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence to that extent. 6. In the light of the above, the impugned award dated 05/03/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application I.D.A.No. 1/2005 is remitted back to the learned Labour Court, Latur with a direction to cast an issue as regards the status of the litigating parties and their interse relationship. The oral and documentary evidence already adduced on record can be utilized by the Lower Court besides allowing the parties to lead evidence on the issue newly framed. Application I.D.A.No. 1/2005 is remitted back to the learned Labour Court, Latur with a direction to cast an issue as regards the status of the litigating parties and their interse relationship. The oral and documentary evidence already adduced on record can be utilized by the Lower Court besides allowing the parties to lead evidence on the issue newly framed. Both the parties undertake not to seek undue adjournments and enable the learned Labour Court to decide the matter afresh within a period of 6 months from today. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an amount of Rs. 38,000/- has been deposited in this Court and the same be transmitted to the learned Labour Court, Latur, to be invested in a fixed deposit for an initial period of 6 months. Adv.Mr.Patil for the respondent has no objection for the same. As such Registry to ensure that the said amount is transmitted to the learned Labour Court, Latur forthwith with a further direction to the said Court to invest the said amount in a Nationalized Bank for a period of six months. 8. With these directions, petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.