JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. : In both these writ petitions the order dated 26.12.2008 vide Annexure-1 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No.148 of 2003, has been challenged. 2.W.P.(C) No.6287 of 2009 has been filed by the Management of Nilachal Refractories Limited impleading the workman as opposite party, whereas W.P.(C) No.7414 of 2009 has been filed by the workman against the management. Therefore, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3.The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7414 of 2009, an employee of Nilachal Refractories Limited, was working as Sr. Fitter Mistry, Mechanical Maintenance. The Company started incurring losses and by the year 1999 the net worth of the company was completely eroded. The company made a reference to the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (in short ‘BIFR’). On 26.08.2004 the company was declared a sick Industrial Unit under Section 3(1)(o) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Canara Bank was appointed as operating agency. The Director of the company having requested the Board for change of Management, BIFR directed the operating agency accordingly. Since the company had gone sick, the erstwhile Management floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in the year 1998 under which 406 out of 416 employees took VRS except ten employees including the present workman. Subsequently, another VRS scheme was floated in the year 2001 and the present workman made an application under the said scheme, which was accepted by the Company with effect from 31.03.2001. As per scheme, the workman became entitled for a monthly payment @ Rs.4,609.43 for a period of 100 months on monthly basis. The company paid the VRS dues of the workman for sixteen months and thereafter stopped making payment, whereupon the workman filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for determination of the amount due. The said application was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No.148 of 2003. By the time of filing application before the Labour Court, thirteen months VRS dues amounting to Rs.59,922.59 had accrued and accordingly that was the amount shown in the application. The said application was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No.148 of 2003. By the time of filing application before the Labour Court, thirteen months VRS dues amounting to Rs.59,922.59 had accrued and accordingly that was the amount shown in the application. The Company filed show cause in the Labour Court taking the plea that in view of the deteriorating financial condition of the company, it failed to arrange funds to pay the VRS dues after payment for sixteen months for which the company floated another VRS scheme, but the present workman did not opt for the same. It was also stated that the company was also lying defunct and its commercial activities were totally stopped. It was also pleaded that the workman having already accepted the VRS offer under the earlier scheme with effect from April, 2001, he has ceased to be an employee under the company and, therefore, he cannot be termed as a ‘workman’ and, therefore, not competent to avail the forum set up under the I.D. Act. The parties led their respective evidence before the Labour Court. On consideration of the materials, the Labour Court by the impugned order calculated the VRS dues of the workman for thirteen months till the date of filing of the application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act and accordingly directed the management of the company to pay the amount of Rs.59,929.59 within two months, failing which the applicant would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum till the date of actual payment. This order has been challenged by both the management of the company and the workman. 4.In assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the management submits that the present management of the company came into being much after acceptance of VRS application of the workman and, therefore, there is no relationship of employer and workman between the parties and, therefore, the present management is not liable to pay the amount calculated and directed by the Labor Court. It is also submitted by him that since the management came up with fresh VRS scheme and the workman did not offer for the same, the management is not liable to pay. It is also submitted that the dispute of the present nature is not covered within the purview of Section 33 (C) (2) of the I.D. Act. It is also submitted by him that since the management came up with fresh VRS scheme and the workman did not offer for the same, the management is not liable to pay. It is also submitted that the dispute of the present nature is not covered within the purview of Section 33 (C) (2) of the I.D. Act. While refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the management, learned counsel for the workman submits that though the application by the workman was filed initially claiming thirteen months VRS dues, subsequently a rejoinder was filed by the workman claiming further unpaid dues and therefore, the Labour Court should have at lest calculated the dues till the date of disposal of the I.D. Misc. Case. 5.It is apparent from the records that an order having been passed by the Board under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short, ‘SICA’), a scheme has been prepared in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act for proper management of the employer company by way of taking over the management. Section 18(2) (b) of the SICA provides for transfer to the transferee company the business, properties, assets and liabilities of the sick industrial company on terms and conditions as may be specified in the scheme. Once the scheme is sanctioned under Sub-section (4) of Section 18 by the Board, the property or liability of the sick industrial company shall stand transferred to, and vest in, the transferee company as per Sub-section (6A) of Section 18. 6.Indisputably, a scheme for the present company has been sanctioned by the Board and as per the sanctioned scheme the properties and liabilities of the company have been transferred to the present management. Clause 7.10 of the sanctioned scheme reveals that the company has a cash and bank balance of Rs.55.79 lakhs, which amount is meant for clearing the dues of earlier employees, who have opted for VRS, but not taken the settlement so far. The clause further stipulates that the new promoters shall ensure the utilization of this amount after take over for the purpose indicated above. This has been reiterated under the heading ‘Cash and Bank Balance’ under clause-12.2 of the sanctioned scheme. Sub-clause (7) of Clause-17 of the sanctioned scheme stipulates for strict compliance with the schedules of payments stipulated under the scheme. This has been reiterated under the heading ‘Cash and Bank Balance’ under clause-12.2 of the sanctioned scheme. Sub-clause (7) of Clause-17 of the sanctioned scheme stipulates for strict compliance with the schedules of payments stipulated under the scheme. 7.With regard to the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, it is held by the Hon’ble apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 275 that the expression “if any question arises as to the amount of money due” embraces within its ambit, whether the amount claimed is due or not. Keeping in view the dictum of the apex Court as seen above, since the monthly VRS dues of the workman for thirteen months were not paid by the date of filing of the application by the workman before the Labour Court, it cannot be said that the dispute does not come within the purview of Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act. 8.Admittedly by the time of filing of the application by the workman his VRS dues for thirteen months had not been paid by the management. It is also an admitted position that the VRS dues of the workman were payable on a monthly basis for 100 months at the rate of Rs.4,609.43 and not by way of one time payment of equivalence of 100 months dues. Therefore, the monthly VRS dues became payable at the end of every month from the date of acceptance of the VRS proposal. Therefore, the relationship of employer and workman between the parties continues till full and final payment of 100 months dues is made. That apart, as per the sanctioned scheme of the Board the present management has already accepted the liabilities of the petitioner which it has to discharge. 9.It is revealed from the records of the Labour Court that after the management filed its show cause the workman filed a rejoinder on 10.07.2007 which indicates that even after filing application of Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, the management has not paid the monthly VRS dues. Therefore, the Labour Court should have taken the rejoinder into consideration and calculated the monthly VRS dues of the workman till June, 2007 from the date of filing of Section 33-C (2) application apart from the original claim for thirteen months raised in the application, which has not been done. Therefore, the Labour Court should have taken the rejoinder into consideration and calculated the monthly VRS dues of the workman till June, 2007 from the date of filing of Section 33-C (2) application apart from the original claim for thirteen months raised in the application, which has not been done. 10.In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that besides the amount already ordered by the Labour Court, the workman is also entitled to the VRS dues for further 46 months, i.e., from September, 2003 to June, 2007. The whole amount shall be paid within a period of three months to the workman along with interest @ 6% per annum. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.6287 of 2009 is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.7414 of 2009 is allowed to the extent indicated. No costs. Ordered accordingly.