ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Labour Court (ID Act), Durg in case No. 77/ID Act/2011 Civil in the case of B. Sanyasi and Ors. vs. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, by which the learned Labour Court allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and has directed the petitioner for payment of salary for the period July 2008 to December 2009, for 19 months salary to respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs.1,24,665/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.8,335/- @ 7000 per month. Similarly, respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.1,15,732/- after adjusting the amount 7,776 @ 6500/- per month and Rs.1,14,228/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.18,772 to respondent No.3 and total amount of Rs.3,53,460/- within a period of one month failing which interest @ 12% from the date of order till the actual payment is made. 2. Brief facts of the case as reflected from the record are that the respondent No. 1 to 3 have filed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 before the Labour Court, Durg which was registered as 77/I.D.Act/2011 Civil mainly contending that respondent No.1 B. Sanyasi and Respondent No. 3 were working as Sale Executive on the contract basis for the period of two years. The respondent No. 2 received the salary @ Rs.6,500/- per month and they have employed with the Bank in 2008. The petitioner has not paid salary and other allowances from July 2008 to December 2009 and they have received only two months salary @ Rs.7000/- per month, therefore, they have claimed the amount as mentioned in the application filed before the Labour Court. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the respondents have served registered notice upon the Bank on 22.09.2010 which was replied, but no salary was paid therefore, they have prayed for issuance of direction to the petitioner Bank for payment of salary for the period which was unpaid to Bank. 3. The respondent Bank has filed its reply mainly contending that an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act is not maintainable as there is no claim extended against the Bank. 3. The respondent Bank has filed its reply mainly contending that an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act is not maintainable as there is no claim extended against the Bank. The objection regarding maintainability of joint application as well as plea of delay and latches is also taken. It has also been contended that respondent No. 1 was separated from the bank on 15.10.2008, respondent No. 2 was separated from the bank on 09.09.2009 and respondent No.3 was separated from the bank on 09.09.2009 as they were working against the interest of the bank. It has been further contented that whatever period they have worked with the bank, the amount has been paid by the bank in their accounts and no amount is payable to them by the Bank. The petitioners has also taken objection about the maintainability of the application under Section 33 (C)(2) of the I.D. Act contending that since no money is due for payment to the respondents 1 to 3 and there is dispute about entitlement of claim the application is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 4. On the pleading of the parties, learned Labour Court has framed as many as three issues. (i) Whether the application filed by the respondents is not maintainable in the light of the provisions contained in Section 33 (C) of the ID Act? (ii) Whether the application filed by the respondents is barred by the limitation? (iii) Whether the respondents are entitled to get amount from the bank if yes how much amount is to be paid? 5. Respondent No. 1 to 3 have examined themselves by filing the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC wherein they have reiterated the stand which they have taken in the application filed before the Labour Court. The respondents after filing of the written statement remained absent; therefore, the Labour Court has passed the ex-parte award on 07.01.2014 directing the Bank to pay the amount as prayed in the application. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order which was allowed on 09.01.2019 and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. But the official of the bank remained absent on 05.01.2016, therefore, again ex-parte proceeding was initiated against the Bank and ex-parte order was passed against the Bank on 07.10.2015. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order which was allowed on 09.01.2019 and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. But the official of the bank remained absent on 05.01.2016, therefore, again ex-parte proceeding was initiated against the Bank and ex-parte order was passed against the Bank on 07.10.2015. The ex-parte proceedings were again set aside and the bank cross examined the witnesses on 26.02.2020 wherein they have admitted that respondent No.1 B. Sanyasi has admitted in the evidence that he has received Rs.8335/- on 08.09.2008 through his account. He has admitted that Ex.D-2 is payment slip wherein he has received the amount of salary of Rs.8335 which is salary of month of August, 2008 and he has also denied that he has given resignation to the bank from service. The other witness Sanjay Kumar Thakur was cross-examined by the counsel for the bank wherein he has admitted that he has received salary of Rs.12,914/- on 08.09.2008 and Rs.5858 on 07.10.2008. He has denied that he has tendered resignation with the bank on 30.09.2008 and he also denied that he along with his friend have not worked with the bank in the month of December 2008. The respondent No. 3 was examined before the Court and he has reiterated the same stand and denied that he has tendered resignation to the bank on 30.09.2008. 6. The Bank has examined one Saiyad Sarafat Ali, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Durg. He has stated that the bank has paid all the dues to respondents and respondent No.1 has tendered resignation on 15.10.2008, respondent No. 2 on 09.09.2009 and Respondent No. 3 has tendered resignation on 30.09.2009 to the bank. This witness was cross-examined by the counsel for the workman wherein he has stated that the respondents have not worked with the bank during the period for which they are claiming salary. He has denied that resignation submitted to the bank forged one. 7. Learned Labour Court vide order dated 12.02.2021 has allowed the application and directed the bank for payment of amount to the tune of Rs.3,53,460/- after adjusting the amount as detailed in paragraph 12 of the order. This order is being assailed by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. 8. Learned Sr. 7. Learned Labour Court vide order dated 12.02.2021 has allowed the application and directed the bank for payment of amount to the tune of Rs.3,53,460/- after adjusting the amount as detailed in paragraph 12 of the order. This order is being assailed by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. 8. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as there is clear bar in view of Section 33(C) of the ID Act. He would further submit that the proceeding under Section 33(C) of the ID Act is an execution proceeding for which at least per-determination award or pre-right should be existed which is missing in this case as their entitlement of salary of respondent No. 1 to 3 is in dispute for the period in question, therefore application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act is not maintainable and would draw attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Lakheshwar Hazarika vs. Presiding Officer and Ors., 2007 (1) Gauhati Law Reporters 545. 9. On the contrary, Mr. T.K. Tiwari, counsel for respondents would submit that the application was very much maintainable and the learned Labour Court after appreciating the material on record has passed the order which is neither perverse nor suffers from irregularities which warrants interference by this Court and would submit that the workman has already withdrawn the amount which has been deposited by the bank. He would further submit that there is no dispute that the respondents were employed with the bank during the period in question but salary has to be paid for the said period and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of Labour Court also. 11. The point requires to be determined by this Court is whether the application filed by the respondent No. 1 to 3 under Section 33 (C) of the ID Act is maintainable or not. 12. For better understanding the issue raised in this petition, it is expedient for this Court to go through the Section 33(C) of the ID Act, which reads as under:- [33C. 12. For better understanding the issue raised in this petition, it is expedient for this Court to go through the Section 33(C) of the ID 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 6[Chapter VA or Chapter VB], 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 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 the 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. (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 with in a period not exceeding three months. 13. 13. From bare perusal of the material placed before the Labour Court, particularly the written statement and the evidence adduced before the Labour Court, it is quite vivid, that the petitioner has taken categorically stand that respondents No.1 to 3 have resigned from the service of the bank, therefore, there is serious dispute whether the respondent No.1 to 3 are the employees or not during period in question, therefore, it is not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to 3. It is well settled legal position of law that as per Section 33(C) of the I.D.Act the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute regarding entitlement of claim of the workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. The record would further show that there was no prior adjudication on the issue whether the respondents were employees of the Bank or not after tendering the alleged resignation as claimed by the petitioner, as such, in absence any pre existing right, serious dispute about the employment of the respondents No. 1 to 3 the application should have not been entertained by the Labour Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 130 in Civil Appeal No. 813 of 2022 has considered the provisions of Section 33(C) of the ID Act and has held as under:- As held by this Court in the case of Ganesh Razak and Anr. (supra), the labour court’s jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is like that of an executing court. As per the settled preposition of law without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (See Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235 ). 14. (See Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235 ). 14. Considering the fact as projected by the parties, it is quite vivid that there is dispute about entitlement of the wages of the period in question as the petitioner bank has taken stand that respondent No. 1 to 3e have tendered resignation which was disputed by the respondents and there is also dispute whether the respondents have worked during the period in question, in such contingency the Labour Court cannot pass the order in the garb of power conferred upon it under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act as under Section 33(C)(2) the Labour Court exercised its executing power for which there must be pre existed right or award must be there which is not available in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the order dated 12.02.2021 deserves to be set aside. 15. In view of the above stated legal position, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court under Section 33(C) (2) of the ID Act in case No. 77/ID Act/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 1 to 3 is granted liberty to agitate or to avail any other remedy which may be available under the Industrial Dispute Act including that of raising industrial dispute to establish employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. In the eventuality of raising such dispute the proceedings shall be considered in accordance with the law and decide it on its own merit as this Court has not expressed any opinion in favour either of the parties. It has also been informed that the respondents have already withdrawn the amount which was deposited before the Labour Court; as such the Bank is entitled to recover the said amount by adopting the recovery proceedings as available to them under the law. 16. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.