JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 22.08.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer Central Government Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad in L.C. Case No. 07/2011 to the extent that whereby adjustment of dues amount has been allowed to the employer towards the claim of penal rent. 3. From the pleading and argument, it appears that the petitioner was an employee under the respondents on the post of Electrician. The year of appointment was 1972 and his personal number is 0197/00159426. The workman was posted at Bhuli Town Administration, BCCL, Dhanbad and he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2007. 4. The petitioner has claimed following dues by approaching the Labour Court under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claim of the petitioner for payment of Arrears of Retiral dues on following head. I. Arrears of wages (NCWA – VIII) II. Leave Encashment 32 days III. E/Encashment of Arrears IV. LLTC – 1995 – 1992 V. LTC - 1995 Rs. 54,270.00 Rs. 1,962.00 Rs. 1,542.00 Rs. 38,928.00 Rs. 8,824.00 Total Rs. 1,23,526.00 5. The respondents have filed their written statement, and the entitlement of petitioner to get the claimed amount has not been disputed rather it has been said that no dues certificate has not been submitted. Further a counter claim has been raised in the form of penal rent as according to the employer, the workman has not vacated the official quarter allotted to him. 6. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and taking evidence, has calculated the amount and it has come to the tune of Rs. 1,05,526/-. There is arithmetical mistake in the claim made by the workman. It has been shown as 1,23,526/- but on calculation it comes as Rs. 1,05,526/-. The whole claim has been allowed but adjustment has been given to the employer under the head of penal rent to the tune of Rs. 1,06,255/-. 7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the workman that he was never allotted any official quarter and as such the claim of the employer is wrong. On the other hand, the employer has argued that the quarter has been allotted and it is still in occupation of the workman and has not been vacated till date. 8. 7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the workman that he was never allotted any official quarter and as such the claim of the employer is wrong. On the other hand, the employer has argued that the quarter has been allotted and it is still in occupation of the workman and has not been vacated till date. 8. It is admitted position that the petitioner has retired after serving the respondents w.e.f. 30.09.2007. Petitioner is entitled for claim made by him which is not in dispute. Only counter claim has been raised by the employer for adjustment of penal rent as workman has not vacated the official quarter. It appears that the employer has calculated his dues on his own as per their rules and counter claim has been raised which has been accepted by the Labour Court. 9. At this stage, Section 7 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:- “Section 7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises:- (1) Where any person, is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. [(2-A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with [compound interest] at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 of 1978).]. (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section(2), shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause [within seven days from the date of issue thereof], why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer. (4) Every order under this section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice.].” 10. From mere perusal of the above Section, it is evident that the Estate Officer has been declared as authorised adjudicature to decide the claim of penal rent or any other compensation. If the employer has any claim, he has to approach the Estate Officer by filing proper application and Estate Officer is competent to declare entitlement of employer and can impose liability upon the concerned workman vis-a-vis penal rent. But, employer cannot declare that he is entitled for penal rent as per rules and cannot be enforced by directly against any employee. If there is any dispute between employer and employee then the authority has been declared by the statute, who is Estate Officer. Otherwise it is settled principle of law that no one can be judge for his own cause. The Employer cannot decide any entitlement by himself regarding the penal rent and cannot enforce it against the employee. Principle of natural justice requires that dispute between two parties to be adjudicated by neutral person. Legislatures were aware of this situation and a neutral adjudicature has been authorised by Section 7 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 11. In the present case no order has been produced before the concerned Labour Court issued by the Estate Officer declaring any penal rent against the employee. Unless and until finding or any order has been recorded by a competent and authorised authority it cannot be enforced especially under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as it covers the field of pre-existing right. If the employer claims pre-existing right then it has to be in terms of Section 7 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. If the employer claims pre-existing right then it has to be in terms of Section 7 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. By its own calculation, the employer cannot claim any penal rent against the employee. 12. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the adjustment allowed to the employer by the Labour Court vide impugned order dated 22.08.2015 is not sustainable in law accordingly the same is, hereby, quashed. However liberty is reserved with the employer to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 13. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.