ORDER : In the instant petition petitioner has questioned the validity of the Labour Court order passed in Application No.99/2009 dated 14.02.2011 by which petitioner claim for a particular wage as well as on the ground of maintainability of application filed under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is rejected. 2. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as Operator on 05.09.1999 with the respondent Company. He had certain grouse relating to payment of wages and such discrimination continued from time to time. In this regard, he has prepared a statement and furnished as AnnexureB1. The respondent Company having denied the claim of petitioner on the score that wages are being paid to the workers depending upon their qualification and experience. The Labour Court considered both on maintainability of application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as on merit as is evident from the order dated 14.02.2011. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled to wages on par with the similarly placed operators who were getting higher wages. The Labour Court has committed error in not appreciating the petitioner’s claim with reference to wages as well as maintainability of application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of petitioner’s claim he relied on two decisions namely the Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. P.S.Rajagopalan Etc (19.04.1963, SCC) and the Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society and another vs. Subhashchandra in W.P.No.81344/2010 dated 01.08.2012 to contend that application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable for the purpose of claiming wages on par with similarly situated persons. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent while resisting the petitioner’s contention submitted that Labour Court has not committed any error in rejecting both on maintainability and merit of the application filed under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of the respondent’s contention he relied on two decisions namely State of U.P and Anr. v. Brijpal Singh reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3592 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another reported in 1994 AIR SCW 5000. He has also pointed out that Labour Court has considered the petitioner’s claim on merit in paras 33 and 33 (read as 34) of the order. v. Brijpal Singh reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3592 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another reported in 1994 AIR SCW 5000. He has also pointed out that Labour Court has considered the petitioner’s claim on merit in paras 33 and 33 (read as 34) of the order. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Question for consideration in the present writ petition are : 1. Whether petitioner’s application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for claiming difference of wages is maintainable or not in the absence of any award or adjudication? 2. Whether petitioner has made out a case to seek higher wages with reference to Annexure-B1 statement or not? Undisputed facts are that petitioner was the operator of respondent Company who is stated to have been appointed on 05.09.1999. Thereafter, time to time wages of petitioner as well as similarly placed persons wages have been raised whereas throughout petitioner has been paid wages not on par with the similarly placed operators. In this regard he has filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without resort to dispute or adjudication before appropriate forum. In the case of State of U.P. and another stated supra, Supreme Court has considered and interpreted Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in particularly para 12 which reads as under :- “12. Thus it is clear from the principle enunciated in the above decisions that the appropriate forum where question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under Section 33C (2) of the I.D. Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum, the respondent workman cannot ask the Labour Court in an application under Section 33C (2) of the I.D. Act to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to compute his wages. It is, therefore, impossible for us to accept the arguments of Mrs. Shymala Pappu that the respondent-workman can file application under Section 33C (2) for determination and payment of wages on the basis that he continues to be in service pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.15172 of 1987 dated 28.10.1987. The argument by the learned counsel for the workman has no force and is unacceptable. The Labour Court, in our opinion, has erred in allowing the application filed under Section 33C (2) of the I.D. Act and ordering payment of not only the salary but also bonus to the workman although he has not attended the office of the appellants after the stay order obtained by him. The Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in passing the order in question, which was rightly impugned before the High Court and erroneously dismissed by the High Court. The High Court has also equally committed a manifest error in not considering the scope of Section 33C (2) of the I.D. Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Case No.11 of 1993 dated 23.8.1995 and the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the High Court in C.M.W.P. No.36406 of 1995 as illegal and uncalled for. We do so accordingly.” 7. Supreme Court considered Ganesh Razak’s case also and extract of para 12 of Ganesh Razak’s case has been made in the judgment. 8. Case No.11 of 1993 dated 23.8.1995 and the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the High Court in C.M.W.P. No.36406 of 1995 as illegal and uncalled for. We do so accordingly.” 7. Supreme Court considered Ganesh Razak’s case also and extract of para 12 of Ganesh Razak’s case has been made in the judgment. 8. The principle laid down in the case of State of U.P. and another read with Ganesh Razak’s cases, it is evident that if there is any dispute relating to discrimination in extending wages among the employees an aggrieved employee is entitled to raise a dispute and thereafter he has to make necessary application. In the present case it is undisputed fact that petitioner has not raised any dispute and straight away filed application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. To counter the Supreme Court decision cited supra learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of Central Bank of India Ltd. and the Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society cases stated supra to contend that if there is any individual grievance relating to wages one need not raise a dispute and he can approach straight away by filing application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. The above cited two decisions of Central Bank of India as well as Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society do not assist the petitioner. On the other hand the decision of State of U.P and another in para 12 stated supra is crystal clear relating to interpretation of Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that one must have a dispute and award must be infavour. 10. In view of these facts and circumstances, Labour Court has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as not maintainable. Even on merits Labour Court has considered in Paras 33 and 33 (read as 34). That apart petitioner while quoting AnnexureB1 relating to particulars of arrears of the petitioner he has simply given the figures he has not pointed out to whom wages are given on higher side. He has also not countered in respect of issue relating to experience read with the qualification, wages are being paid by the respondent Company as is evident from the evidence of officials of the respondent Company which has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while passing award. 11. He has also not countered in respect of issue relating to experience read with the qualification, wages are being paid by the respondent Company as is evident from the evidence of officials of the respondent Company which has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while passing award. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the Labour Court dated 14.02.2011 passed in Application No.99/2009. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. 12. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he cannot raise any dispute either under Section 2(a) or 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As long as Supreme Court decision in respect of interpretation and principle laid down in the case of State of U.P., to the extent that one must raise dispute. The above contention is hereby rejected.