JUDGMENT : 1. Since the common question and issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are analogously heard and decided by the common judgment. 2. Issue RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the Labour Court, Anand has erroneously and illegally rejected the Recovery Applications filed by the workmen claiming the differential amount of D.A. and increments rendered by each of the workman from 31.10.2003 till 24.05.2004. 4. Since, the petitioners were not paid the amount of D.A and increments for the aforesaid period, they filed recovery applications in the year 2006. The Labour Court, Anand partly allowed the same vide orders dated 06.04.2015, which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.15096 of 2015 and allied matters filed by the respondent–Corporation. By the order dated 25.04.2018, the writ petitions were allowed, by setting aside the order of the Labour Court, and the matters were remanded to the Labour Court with a liberty to raise all available contentions of both the sides. After the remand, the Labour Court, Anand, has passed the impugned orders rejecting the recovery applications. 5. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya appearing for the petitioners that all the petitioners applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme, and the same was also granted to them, and all the petitioners were relieved from service w.e.f 31.10.2003. However, though they were continued in service till 24.05.2004, they were not paid the increments and D.A. and hence, they were compelled to file an applications under Section 33C(2)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the I.D.Act”). It is submitted that the petitioners are legally entitled to such undisputed amount, hence no prior adjudication was required. Thus, he has submitted that the Labour Court, Anand was not justified in rejecting such applications by holding that since there is no prior determination of the amount through any adjudication process, the petitioners cannot claim such amount directly by filing applications under the provision of Section 33(C) (2) of the I.D.Act. No further submission is advanced. 6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, the learned advocate Mr. No further submission is advanced. 6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the petitioners do not have pre-existing rights to get yearly increment and D.A. It is submitted that since the claim of the petitioners is not adjudicated by the Labour Court, they cannot claim the amount by filing applications under Section 33C(2)(2) of the I.D.Act. It is submitted that the petitioners’ had tendered their resignation and accordingly, their resignation was accepted by the respondents and they were relieved from service on 31.10.2003. However, since the State Government did not allot the funds to pay the concerned employees under the VRS, there was bona fide delay in making the payment. It is submitted that after relieving the petitioners from service in order to see that they may get the livelihood and may not suffer, they were asked to work and wages were paid separately from 01.11.2003 to 24.05.2004 and the same were accepted by all of them. It is submitted that after the acceptance of their resignation, they cannot be said to be in regular service and hence, they do not have any right to claim yearly increment and D.A. declared by the State Government. It is also submitted that after having accepted the wages for the said period in the year 2004, the applications are filed belatedly after a period in the year 2006. Thus, it is submitted that since there was no prior adjudication, and pre-existing right and the claims are disputed, the order passed by the Labour Court, may not be disturbed. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Beverage (P) Limited vs. Sureshchand reported in 1978 (2) SCC 144 , State Bank of India vs. Ram Chandra Dubey reported in 2001 (1) SCC 73 and State of U.P. vs. Brijpalsingh reported in 2005 (8) SCC 58 . 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. The facts as narrated hereinabove are not in dispute. The State Government vide Notification dated 05.07.2003 floated VRS and accordingly, all the petitioners applied for the same, and they were relieved from service on 31.10.2003, after their resignations were accepted. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. The facts as narrated hereinabove are not in dispute. The State Government vide Notification dated 05.07.2003 floated VRS and accordingly, all the petitioners applied for the same, and they were relieved from service on 31.10.2003, after their resignations were accepted. It is the case of the respondent-Corporation that since the State Government did not allot any funds, and in order to see that the petitioners do not suffer financially, they were asked to continue from 01.11.2003 to 24.05.2004. Accordingly, all the petitioners were paid the wages for the aforesaid period. It is the specific case of the Corporation, that such period cannot be said to be regular service since the same is rendered after the acceptance of resignations, hence they are not entitled to DA and increments for such period. The respondent-Corporation is disputing the entitlement of differential amount of D.A and increments, which are sought under the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act. The acceptance of the VRS is not in dispute, however, the dispute remains with regard to the entitlement of D.A. and increment as fixed by the State Government after the acceptance of resignation till they were relieved from service. The Labour Court, Anand has rejected the applications of the petitioners after remand of this Court for the reason that there is no prior adjudication culminating into pre-existing right on the claim of D.A and increments. The applications before the Labour Court, Anand are filed under Section 33C of the I.D.Act, which reads as under : "[33C. The Labour Court, Anand has rejected the applications of the petitioners after remand of this Court for the reason that there is no prior adjudication culminating into pre-existing right on the claim of D.A and increments. The applications before the Labour Court, Anand are filed under Section 33C of the I.D.Act, which reads as under : "[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 5A or chapter 5B, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case, of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of 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 application had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months. Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit." It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Brijpal Singh reported in 2005 (8) SCC 58 the Supreme Court after survey of various decisions on the interpretation of the provisions of section 33C has held thus:- “10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed u/s. 33C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint u/s. 33A or on a reference u/s. 10 that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the case of Punjab Beverages Put. Ltd. V/s. Suresh Chand, 1978 (2) SCC 144 held that a proceeding u/s. 33C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further, this Court held that the right to the money which is sought to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer. This Court further held as follows: "It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction u/s. 33C(2) to arrogate to itself the functions of an industrial tribunal and entertain a claim which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial dispute in a reference u/s. 10 of the Act." 11. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ganesh Razek & Anr., 1995 (1) SCC 235 , this Court held as under:- "12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ganesh Razek & Anr., 1995 (1) SCC 235 , this Court held as under:- "12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compare the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity required interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power u/s. 33-C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. 13. In these matters, the claim of the respondent-workmen who were all daily-rated/casual workers, to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer without which the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach. The workmen's claim of doing the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workmen on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" being disputed, without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract Sec. 33-C(2). The mere fact that some other workmen are alleged to have made a similar claim by filing writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution is indicative of the need for adjudication of the claim of entitlement to the benefit before computation of such a benefit could be sought. The mere fact that some other workmen are alleged to have made a similar claim by filing writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution is indicative of the need for adjudication of the claim of entitlement to the benefit before computation of such a benefit could be sought. Respondents claim is not based on a prior adjudication made in the writ petition filed by some other workmen upholding a similar claim which could be relied on as an adjudication enduring to the benefit of these respondents as well. The writ petitions by some other workmen to which some reference was casually made, particulars of which are not available in these matters, have, therefore, no relevance for the present purpose. It must, therefore, be held that the Labour Court as well as the High Court were in error in treating as maintainable the applications made u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act by these respondents." 12. In the case of State Bank of India V/s. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC 73 , this Court held as under :- "7. When a reference is made to an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to whether the termination of a workman is justified or not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of examination of the question whether the reinstatement should be with full or partial back wages or none. Such a question is one of fact depending upon the evidence to be produced before the Tribunal. If after the termination of the employment, the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere it is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether or not reinstatement should be with full back wages or with continuity of employment. Such questions can be appropriately examined only in a reference. When a reference is made u/s. 10 of the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be determined by the Tribunal and in this particular case, a specific question has been referred to the Tribunal as to the nature of relief to be granted to the workmen. 8. Such questions can be appropriately examined only in a reference. When a reference is made u/s. 10 of the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be determined by the Tribunal and in this particular case, a specific question has been referred to the Tribunal as to the nature of relief to be granted to the workmen. 8. The principles enunciated in the decisions referred by either side can be summed up as follows: Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act is necessarily a per-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. The difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act while the latter does not. It cannot be spelt out from the award in the present case that such a right or benefit has accrued to the workman as the specific question of the relief granted is confined only to the reinstatement without stating anything more as to the back wages. Hence that relief must be deemed to have been denied, for what is claimed but not granted necessarily gets denied in judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Further when a question arises as to the adjudication of a claim for back wages all relevant circumstances which will have to be gone into, are to be considered in a judicious manner. Therefore, the appropriate forum wherein such question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom a reference u/s. 10 of the Act is made. To state that merely upon reinstatement, a workman would be entitled, under the terms of award, to all his arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect because several factors will have to be considered, as stated earlier, to find out whether the workman is entitled to back wages at all and to what extent. To state that merely upon reinstatement, a workman would be entitled, under the terms of award, to all his arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect because several factors will have to be considered, as stated earlier, to find out whether the workman is entitled to back wages at all and to what extent. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have presumed that the award of the Labour Court for grant of back wages is implied in the relief of reinstatement or that the award of reinstatement itself conferred right for claim of back wages". 13. 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 10of 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. 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, 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.” 9. The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Birendra A Bhandari reported in 2006 (10) SSC 211, while examining claim for payment of arrears relating to differentiation of salary, D.A. arising out of recommendation of 5th Pay Commission, had held thus:- “7. The benefit which can be enforced under Section 33 C(2) is a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. 8. In the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors., [2001] 1 SCC 73, this Court held as under: "7. When a reference is made to an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to whether the termination of a workman is justified or not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of examination of the question whether the reinstatement should be with full or partial back wages or none. Such a question is one of fact depending upon the evidence to be produced before the Tribunal. If after the termination of the employment, the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere it is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether or not reinstatement should be with full back wages or with continuity of employment. Such questions can be appropriately examined only in a reference. If after the termination of the employment, the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere it is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether or not reinstatement should be with full back wages or with continuity of employment. Such questions can be appropriately examined only in a reference. When a reference is made under Section 10 of the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be determined by the Tribunal and in this particular case, a specific question has been referred to the Tribunal as to the nature of relief to be granted to the workmen. 8. The principles enunciated in the decisions referred by either side can be summed up as follows: Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can approach Labour Court under Section 33 C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33 C(2) of the Act is necessarily a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right The difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33 C(2) of the Act while the latter does not. It cannot be spelt out from the award in the present case that such a right or benefit has accrued to the workman as the specific question of the relief granted is confined only to the reinstatement without stating anything more as to the back wages. Hence that relief must be deemed to have been denied, for what is claimed but not granted necessarily gets denied in judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Further when a question arises as to the adjudication of a claim for back wages all relevant circumstances which will have to be gone into, are to be considered in a judicious manner. Therefore, the appropriate forum wherein such question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom, a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. Therefore, the appropriate forum wherein such question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom, a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. To state that merely upon reinstatement, a workman would be entitled, under the terms of award, to all his arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect because several factors will have to be considered, as stated earlier, to find out whether the workman is entitled to back wages at all and to what extent. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have presumed that the award of the Labour Court for grant of back wages is implied in the relief of reinstatement or that the award of reinstatement itself conferred right for claim of back wages." 9. The position was re-iterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Brijpal Singh, [2005] 8 SCC 58. 10. Judged in the background of principles set out above, the orders passed by the Labour Court and the High Court are indefensible and are accordingly set aside.” 10. The Supreme Court in the aforenoted judgments has held that the benefits under the provision of Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act can be enforced, on a pre-existing right. It is also held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made 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. It is held that the workman can proceed under section 33C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under section 33A or on a reference under section 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that a proceeding under section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money and such right to the money which is sought to be calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer. Thus, the claim of the petitioners with regard to the payment of amount of D.A and increments cannot be directly approved in an application filed under the provision of Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act as such claim is disputed by the respondent-Corporation by contesting that an employee is entitled to D.A. and increments only when he is in regular service, and such benefits cannot be paid after the acceptance of resignations. It is also their specific case that the State Government had not released any funds and in order to see that the petitioners do not suffer financially they were asked to continue after they were relieved from service and accordingly the wages for such period were also paid. The aspect of delay in claiming the amount is also raised by the respondent-Corporation. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they were coerced or forced to continue in service after they were relieved. All these disputed issues are required to be adjudicated in appropriate forum, and cannot be determined in the proceedings under the provision of section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947. 11. In light of the settled proposition of law, the award passed by the Labour Court, Anand cannot be said to be tainted with any vice of perversity or illegality and hence, the writ petitions fail. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.