ORDER 1. Aggrieved by order dated 23.02.2013 whereby, the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed, the petitioner-M/s. BCCL has approached this Court. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent-employee was appointed on 02.01.1972 and he submitted his application under the VRS Scheme on 31.03.2001. It is further stated that the respondent-employee rendered services for 29 years, 2 months and 29 days and thus, he was entitled for ex-gratia payment of 1½ months for each completed year of service or monthly wages at the time of retirement multiplied by balance number of months of service. It is stated that the respondent-employee was entitled for monetary benefit of 43 and ½ months only and he was paid terminal benefit for 702 days. Since the respondent-employee was not paid the due amount, he filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing notice to the petitioner, the application dated 21.08.2012 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed. An application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be maintained only when either the claim of the workman is admitted by the employer or there is an award in which claim of the workman has been adjudicated. In the present case neither of these two conditions is satisfied, yet the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been allowed by the Labour Court and therefore, order dated 23.02.2013 is liable to be set aside. 4. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-employee opposes the writ petition and submits that inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear in the proceeding of M.J. Case No.54 of 2012 and therefore, at this stage, it cannot raise a grievance that order dated 23.02.2013 has been passed in its absence. 5. As noticed above, in the writ petition it has been admitted by the petitioner that the respondent-employee was employed by the petitioner in service on 02.01.1972 and he rendered services for more than 29 years. It is further admitted by the petitioner that the respondent-employee was entitled to receive wages as per VRS. In “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. As noticed above, in the writ petition it has been admitted by the petitioner that the respondent-employee was employed by the petitioner in service on 02.01.1972 and he rendered services for more than 29 years. It is further admitted by the petitioner that the respondent-employee was entitled to receive wages as per VRS. In “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Birendra Bhandari”, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 211 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that “the benefit which can be enforced under Section 33-C (2) is a preexisting benefit or one flowing from a preexisting right”. 6. Insofar as, service of notice upon the petitioner is concerned, from the order-sheet of M.J. Case No.54 of 2012, I find that notice was issued to the opposite party and order dated 28.09.2012 records that notice was served upon the petitioner. Orders dated 25.10.2012 and 11.12.2012 also record that inspite of service of notice, the petitioner-opposite party did not appear in the proceeding of M.J. Case No.54 of 2012. Vide order dated 16.01.2013, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing and thereafter, after considering the materials brought on record, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay difference of 43.5 months' wages to the workman. The petitioner has not brought on record any material to prima facie show that notice was not served upon the petitioner and orders dated 28.09.2012, 25.10.2012 and 11.12.2012 suffer from error of record in as much as, proper service report was not before the trial court. In the writ petition, the petitioner has merely stated that, “petitioner was not served notice of M.J. Case No. 54 of 2012.” However, order dated 16.01.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the deemed service of notice upon the petitioner was an error committed by the trial court. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that notice of M.J. Case No. 54 of 2012 was not served upon it. Insofar as, the employment of the respondent-employee with the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute and thus, the entitlement of the respondent-employee in terms of VRS cannot be disputed by the petitioner. Insofar as, the employment of the respondent-employee with the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute and thus, the entitlement of the respondent-employee in terms of VRS cannot be disputed by the petitioner. Before the Labour Court, the respondent-workman produced copy of service excerpt, order dated 31.03.2001 whereby the application of VRS was accepted by the competent authority and order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Labour Commissioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act etc. The Labour Court vide order dated 23.02.2013 has directed payment of 43.5 months salary @ Rs.240.34 which was the last drawn wage of the respondent-employee as on 31.03.2001. The Labour Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the respondent-workman has already been paid an amount of Rs. 1,68,718.68/- and therefore, the petitioner-opposite party was directed to pay difference of 43.5 months wage to the respondent-workman. As noticed above in the writ petition, the petitioner has not denied that the respondent-employee was granted VRS, in terms of which one and half month of wage for each year of completed service has to be paid to the concerned employee. It is not the case of the petitioner that the terms of VRS is not applicable in the case of the respondent-employee and thus, I find and hold that the claim of the respondent-employee has been admitted by the petitioner and, application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable. 7. I find no merit and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.