JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner/Agricultural University is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08/08/1997 delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by which Misc. Complaint (ULP) No. 3/1989 has been allowed u/s 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides extensively on 25/01/2017 and again today. 3. This is a second round of litigation between the parties before this Court. By judgment dated 26/04/1996, the Industrial Court had allowed the Misc. Complaint and had granted relief to only 10 workers out of the 20 involved in the litigation. The University had approached this Court in WP No. 3839/1996 and by order dated 24/09/1996, the petition was allowed. The judgment of the Industrial Court dated 26/04/1996 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Court for a proper hearing/adjudication. 4. The contention of Mr. Shahane in the above backdrop is that when the Industrial Court has granted relief to 10 claimants out of 20 and this Court had remanded the proceedings to the Industrial Court, those 10 persons whose claims were negated by the Industrial Court and had not approached this Court for challenging the said order, cannot get a respite merely because this Court has remitted the matter. They cannot succeed and obtain relief indirectly in a petition filed by the University, without setting forth a substantive challenge in the form of a separate notification. 5. Considering the order which I intend to pass in this petition, I am not deciding the objections raised by Mr. Shahane as recorded above. 6. The workers, whose cause is espoused by the respondent/Union, were before the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 310/1986 filed on 14/07/1986. The Union had claimed permanency on behalf of these workers. By judgment dated 12/10/1988, the benefits of permanency were granted by the Industrial Court w.e.f. 14/07/1986. The University challenged the said judgment in WP Nos. 402/1989 and 408/1989. By judgment dated 23/04/1990, this Court rejected the challenge of the University and granted 12% interest on the consequential benefits. 7. Prior to the above, 10 of the workers in these proceedings were terminated by the University. They preferred Complaint (ULP) No.9/1987 before the Labour Court which was allowed by judgment dated 31/08/1991 and they were granted reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. 7. Prior to the above, 10 of the workers in these proceedings were terminated by the University. They preferred Complaint (ULP) No.9/1987 before the Labour Court which was allowed by judgment dated 31/08/1991 and they were granted reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. The University preferred Revision (ULP) No.44/1991 before the Industrial Court which was dismissed by judgment dated 04/01/1994. Said judgment was not challenged by the University. 8. It was in the above backdrop that the respondent/Union representing all these 20 workers had preferred Misc. Complaint (ULP) No. 3/1989. It cannot be ignored considering the effect of Section 50 of the MRTU and PULP, 1971 that in this proceeding before the Industrial Court u/s 50 there were two sets of workers. One group of 10 workers relied upon the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 12/10/1988 granting permanency from 14/07/1986. The other set of 10 workers, who were terminated in 1987 and had filed their complaint before the Labour Court, initially relied upon the permanency granted by the Industrial Court and also relied upon the judgment of the Labour Court dated 31/08/1991 for seeking unpaid wages for the period of continuity granted by the Labour Court. 9. The above aspects could not have been gone into by the Industrial Court in a proceeding u/s 50 which reads as under : “50. 9. The above aspects could not have been gone into by the Industrial Court in a proceeding u/s 50 which reads as under : “50. Recovery of money due from employer :- Where any money is due to an employee from an employer under an order passed by the Court under Chapter VI, the employee himself or any other person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of death of the employee, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make, an application to the Court for the recovery of money due to him, and if the Court is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall, proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue : Provided that, every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the employee from the employer : Provided further that, any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the Court is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.” 10. Rule 97 under the Labour Courts (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 1975 provides that an application for recovery of money u/s 50 of the Act shall be made to the Court which has passed the order. Under the Industrial Court Regulations, 1975, Regulation 140 also provides that an application for recovery of money u/s 50 could be made only to the Court which has passed the order. It is, therefore, a prescription of Law that an application u/s 50 can be made only to that Court which has passed an order and which therefore pre-supposes that the application must solely and exclusively based upon the order passed by the Court in an earlier proceeding. 11. This Court, in the matter of V. Ramanathan, General Secretary, Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and another, [2002(92) FLR 265], has laid down the Law that the recovery of money u/s 50 for issuance of a certificate by the Court which has passed the order, can be entertained only after the claimant's entitlement is determined finally by some authority. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and another, [2002(92) FLR 265], has laid down the Law that the recovery of money u/s 50 for issuance of a certificate by the Court which has passed the order, can be entertained only after the claimant's entitlement is determined finally by some authority. The Court, u/s 50, cannot resort to an adjudicatory process in the form of a complete trial and investigation to determine whether the claimant was basically entitled to the claim and then decide the amount of arrears of dues not paid by the employer. In short, the amount claimed must be due and payable and the jurisdiction of the Court u/s 50 can not be expanded to permit a complete trial of the matter as if it is an original proceeding. 12. The observations of this Court in paragraph No.6 of the Hindustan Lever Case (supra) read as under : “I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court of Shri Baj had not determined the amounts or arrears. He had determined the question of entitlement of the employees under settlement of 1971 and he had left at that end by saying that to pay out all arrears of amounts due and payable. If he were to determine and compute this arrears, in that case, the provisions of Section 50 would have been instantly attracted. Shri Baj had left the arrears to be computed. Whether such arrears are due and payable has to be decided by appropriate Court on computation. The provisions of Section 50 is to execute the final order passed by a Court of law and not to determine the amounts and not to find out whether arrears were due and payable. The purpose of Section 50 is to assist a claim for recovery of his determined dues and not to adjudicate or determine such dues whether they are payable or not. It is significant to read Form 24 which specifically mentions as under:- “2. This Court has ordered that a sum of Rs. ... should be paid by Opponent No. ..... to the employee in Application (U.L.P.) No. ..... decided by this Court on ......" The Legislature has provided a form under Section 50 and in the said form the applicant is required to give the exact sum recoverable as per the order of the Court. ... should be paid by Opponent No. ..... to the employee in Application (U.L.P.) No. ..... decided by this Court on ......" The Legislature has provided a form under Section 50 and in the said form the applicant is required to give the exact sum recoverable as per the order of the Court. What is the exact sum due and payable must be determined before resorting to Section 50 of the Act. It is not the function of the Court under Section 50 to investigate what are the amounts due and payable. The Court under Section 50 must be told that the arrears were already determined and they were a particular amount. Such Court cannot be called upon to determine and adjudicate any other question or any other triable issues. In the present case the authority of the petitioner was questioned, jurisdiction of the Industrial Court at Mumbai was challenged and thirdly, it was averred by the Company that the amounts were already paid and that the employees had settled their dues. It was also averred that the petitioner had no authority from one of the employees to file such an application. All these contentions are to be properly decided by an appropriate forum and not a forum under Section 50 of the Act.” 13. In yet another case in the matter of Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar, Raigad and another Vs. Ultra Drytech Engineering Ltd., Raigad and another [2004(I) CLR 145], this Court has held that the Court dealing with Section 50 proceedings, cannot resort to an adjudicatory process of deciding the entitlement of the claimants. The entitlement has to be settled by an earlier order passed by the same Court and what remains to be done u/s 50 is that the Court must resort to a proper arithmetical calculation to decide the total quantum of unpaid dues for which a recovery certificate has to be issued by the said Court. 14. The observations of this Court in paragraph Nos.7, 10 and 16 read as under :- “7. While dealing with the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the parties, it would at the outset, be worthwhile to compare the provisions of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 with those of Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which are pari materia. While dealing with the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the parties, it would at the outset, be worthwhile to compare the provisions of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 with those of Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which are pari materia. These convictions are as follows: "Section 50 Recovery of money due from employer:- Where any money is due to an employee from an employer under an order passed by the Court under chapter VI, the employee himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of death of the employee, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the Court for the recovery of money due to him, and if the Court is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall, proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the ate on which money became due to the employee from the employer: Provided further that, any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the Court is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period." "Section 33C. Recovery of money due from an employer:- (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VI or Chapter VB, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or in the case of death of the workman, his assignee of heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which money became due to the workman from the employer: Provided further that, any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period." A comparison of the two provisions would demonstrate that the difference between the two provisions is that Section 50 applies where the money is due to the employee from an employer under an order passed by the court under Chapter VI of the State Act while Section 33C(1) deals with a situation where the money due to an employer is under a settlement, award or under Chapter VA or VB of the Central Act. Moreover, whereas the power under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices At, 1971 can be exercised by the Labour or Industrial Court, the power under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is vested in the appropriate Government. 10. The judgment of the Supreme Court is clearly attracted to a case such as the present. In the present case, the order of the Industrial Court of 22nd June 2001 holds that the employees are entitled to 50% of their wages between January and July 2000 and that thereafter, from July 2000 until the employees resume their duties, they would be entitled to the payment of their wages. In the present case, the order of the Industrial Court of 22nd June 2001 holds that the employees are entitled to 50% of their wages between January and July 2000 and that thereafter, from July 2000 until the employees resume their duties, they would be entitled to the payment of their wages. There is no dispute in the present case about the wages; about the date from which the payment is to be made and the date upto which the payment was liable to the made. The date on which the employees were allowed to resume their duties is admitted. The Industrial Court was manifestly in error in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 would not be attracted. The Industrial Court noted in its order that there was no effective challenge to the statement of computation which had been submitted for and on behalf of the workmen. The amount was not disputed, nor was the mode of calculation in dispute. The workmen had, it must be noted in the present case, not approached the Industrial Court in proceedings under Section 50 for an adjudication of their entitlement. Their entitlement had already been adjudicated upon in the order of 22nd June 2001 passed in the complaint of unfair labour practices which had been affirmed by this Court. All the remained was a simple arithmetical calculation. 16. Now, there can be no dispute about the principle that under Section 50, it would not be open to the Labour Court or the Industrial Court to adjudicate upon an entitlement for the first time, and the statement of law in the judgment in Ramanathan's case (supra) is correct so far as it reiterates that position. Ramanathan's case does not lay down a wider principle and indeed, it cannot be so construed having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Section 50 refers to a situation where money is due to an employee from an employer under an order passed by the Court under Chapter VI. If the entitlement of the employees has already been adjudicated upon and a simple arithmetical calculation is all that is required to be made, the workmen are entitled to move the Industrial Court under Section 50. If the entitlement of the employees has already been adjudicated upon and a simple arithmetical calculation is all that is required to be made, the workmen are entitled to move the Industrial Court under Section 50. The workmen do not forsake their remedy under Section 50 merely because an arithmetical calculation is still to be made and was not made in the order of which enforcement is sought. To hold that Section 50 would not apply merely because in the original order of the Labour or Industrial Court, a final computation has not been made would be to render the salutary provision of Section 50 nugatory. Such an interpretation cannot be adopted particularly since it is contrary to the plain terms of Section 50 and the interpretation placed on a similar provision by the Supreme Court. To recapitulate, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act can be availed of in a case such as the present where the entitlement of the workmen is not in dispute, where the period for which wages had to be paid was not in dispute, where the amount of wages is not in dispute and the only surviving question in that regard was an arithmetical calculation of the amount due and payable.” 15. In the instant case, the respondent/Union on the one hand has based its claim, on behalf of the 20 workers, on the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 12/10/1988 granting it permanency and on the other hand, has supported its claim with a statistical chart. Disputed claims like the difference in pay scales, entitlement to leave encashment, bonus, interest, dress allowance etc. have been set out. 16. Notwithstanding the contention of the petitioner that all these amounts had already been paid, the fact remains as to whether the jurisdiction of the Court u/s 50 can be expanded beyond the inherent jurisdiction vested in it u/s 50. This Court in the matter of Rohidas Waraji Nisargandh Vs. Precision Pattern Works, [ 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 730 ], while dealing with a claim of difference in the payment vis-à-vis prescribing minimum rates of wages under the Minimum wages Act, concluded that when the right of a worker was crystallized by the Industrial Court by granting him permanency, the Law made the minimum wages applicable to the claimant and as such he was legally entitled to the minimum rates of wages. The Industrial Court, therefore, could resort to an arithmetical calculation of arriving at the figure of unpaid wages and could therefore deal with the Section 50 proceedings. 17. Though this Court, by its order dated 24/09/1996, had remanded Misc. Complaint (ULP) No. 3/1989 to the Industrial Court, I find that this Court did not have the benefit of the two judgments delivered in the Hindustan Lever Case (supra) and the Ultra Drytech case (supra) which were delivered subsequently. So also, it appears from the order of this Court dated 24/09/1996 that the petitioners did not appear to have raised this issue that Section 50 proceedings are of a summary nature and are not original proceedings, though I have not dealt with issue as to whether recording of evidence is possible in such cases. 18. Considering the above, I find that the claim put forth by the respondent/Union, which calls for a complete adjudication regarding the entitlement of the workers in the face of the strenuous contentions of the University that all the amounts have been paid, could not have been entertained by the Industrial Court u/s 50. So also, the Industrial Court, while delivering the impugned order, has not dealt with the evidence, though the fact remains that it could not have gone into deciding the entitlement of the workers. 19. Notwithstanding the above, I can not be oblivious to the fact that these workers concerned have been litigating against the employer since 1989. They cannot be rendered remediless. In this backdrop, I deem it proper to allow the respondent/Union to file a proper complaint under such items of Schedule II and IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 as they may deem proper for espousing their clause as regards entitlement or raise an industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act. 20. Considering the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 08/08/1997 is quashed and set aside and Misc. Complaint (ULP) No.3/1989 stands rejected. 21. Nevertheless, the respondents would be at liberty as stated above to take recourse to the said proceedings. If the said recourse is opted for within a period of 6 weeks from today, the time spent by the respondents in approaching the Industrial Court in 1989 till the judgment of this Court, shall be considered to be a good ground for entertaining such a proceeding. If the said recourse is opted for within a period of 6 weeks from today, the time spent by the respondents in approaching the Industrial Court in 1989 till the judgment of this Court, shall be considered to be a good ground for entertaining such a proceeding. In the alternative, they would be at liberty to raise an Industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 if they so desire. In the event, either of the said proceedings are initiated, the Authority/Court dealing with the same, shall decide the said dispute expeditiously considering that it is about 28 years old. 22. All contentions of the litigating sides are kept open to be considered by the competent authority. 23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.