JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10264/2022 (L-RES). 2. We have heard Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, Shri V.S.Naik, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1 and Shri N.R.Girisha, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the decision of second respondent herein dated 24.01.2022, which was produced as Annexure-K. A direction was sought to the first respondent to grant permission by considering the application dated 29.09.2021, filed by the respondents herein to prosecute the appellant- Company for violation of the terms of the award. The respondents herein had filed the application seeking permission for prosecution of the employer/appellant. The said application was rejected by the Regional Labour Commissioner on the ground that there is a proceeding pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act' for short). 4. The learned Single Judge noticed that there were earlier proceedings before this Court which had culminated in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010. It was found that the Division Bench had held that the workmen of the canteen would be entitled to be treated on par with permanent unskilled workers of respondent No.2 and would be entitled to arrears of the difference in their salaries and emoluments. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 12.03.2015 in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010 had directed the workmen to approach the CGIT under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. The workmen had approached the Tribunal and their application was pending. 5. However, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the respondents that the 33C(2) application filed by the workmen before the CGIT was with regard to the determination of the past dues and not as regards to the future payment. It was therefore found that the application for prosecution being with regard to the future payment to be made to the workmen, the claim was outside the scope of the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and that the rejection of the same was improper. The writ petition was therefore allowed. It was therefore found that the application for prosecution being with regard to the future payment to be made to the workmen, the claim was outside the scope of the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and that the rejection of the same was improper. The writ petition was therefore allowed. The impugned order of the Regional Labour Commissioner was set aside and the mandamus was issued to the Regional Labour Commissioner to consider the application filed by the first respondent herein on merits with reference to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. 6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the findings of the learned Single Judge are per se factually incorrect. Drawing our attention to the orders passed in the earlier round of writ petitions, it is contended that the Division Bench in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010, had clearly held that the workmen of BEML canteen at Mysuru are entitled for equal wages on par with the permanent unskilled workers of the BEML, considering the hardship that would be caused to BEML, the arrears of difference in salaries and emoluments are reduced to 35%. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment by the appellants herein was dismissed. Thereafter, the Company issued a communication dated 31.12.2015 stating that the award and the directions of the Division Bench had been complied with. The Union filed Writ Petition No.36848/2016 (L-RES) seeking directions to the appellant to comply with the directions of the Division Bench which was disposed of by judgment dated 22.03.2018 holding as follows:- "xxx xxx Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. It is for the petitioner-Union to approach the Contempt Court, if it so desires. With these observations petition stands disposed of." 7. A Contempt of Court Case was filed by the workmen alleging non-compliance with the directions of the Order dated 12.03.2015 in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010. The Contempt Court extracted the operative portions of the order in the Writ Petition as well as the Writ Appeal. Thereafter, it was clearly held as under: "5. With these observations petition stands disposed of." 7. A Contempt of Court Case was filed by the workmen alleging non-compliance with the directions of the Order dated 12.03.2015 in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010. The Contempt Court extracted the operative portions of the order in the Writ Petition as well as the Writ Appeal. Thereafter, it was clearly held as under: "5. On a reading of the same, we find that the Division Bench has held that they have to be considered as permanent workmen of BEML and are entitled to consequential benefits including the right to claim the status of permanent workmen of BEML on par with unskilled workmen. The Division Bench has not set aside the order of the learned single Judge, wherein it was held that the workmen are not to be treated as permanent workmen of the establishment as had been held by the Labour Court in its award. What emerges is that the Division Bench has merely opined that the workmen are entitled to parity in salaries and benefits and they have a right to claim status of being the permanent workmen, but the order of the learned single Judge was not interfered with in any manner except moulding of the relief to the aforesaid extent. The Division Bench’s judgment was sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In W.P.No.36848/2016 filed by the complainant herein, learned single Judge has expressed its disinclination to interfere in the matter. 6. Learned senior counsel submits that as per Annexures – G to N, the employees are treated as employees of the contractor and not as permanent employees of the establishment. He further submits that the employees are not being paid annual increments and other benefits, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the salaries which are being paid to unskilled employees are being paid to the workmen as directed by the learned single Judge and also by the Division Bench of this Court. He further submits that if there is any further grievance remaining, the workmen would have to approach the Labour Court and seek relief under Section 33(C) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short). 7. We find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused. He further submits that if there is any further grievance remaining, the workmen would have to approach the Labour Court and seek relief under Section 33(C) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short). 7. We find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused. This contempt petition is not intended to determine any further status that the employees are claiming on the basis of the orders passed by this Court. The monetary reliefs and other consequential benefits which the workers claim that they are entitled to have to be sought for before the appropriate forum i.e., by filing the proceeding under Section 33(C) of the Act. 8. In the circumstances, we find it appropriate to drop the contempt proceedings as we are satisfied that the accused has paid the salaries to the workmen in accordance with the direction issued by this Court. If the workmen or complainants are still dissatisfied or have got any grievance with regard to payment or if there is any arrears of amount or benefits to be granted to the workmen, liberty is reserved to them to seek the same in accordance with law and particularly having regard to Section 33(C) of the Act." 8. Thereafter, an application was made on 08.02.2018 by the Union to the Chief Labour Commissioner, complaining of non-compliance of the award and seeking permission to prosecute the Company under Section 34 of the ID Act. The same was allowed by order dated 20.07.2018 with Corrigendum dated 10.08.2018 and 14.08.2018. The Regional Labour Commissioner found that the award, as modified, had not been complied with and permission was granted to file prosecution case against the Executive Director, BEML Limited for non-implementation of the award in full. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.39614/2018 (L-RES), which was disposed of by Annexure - D, judgment dated 04.04.2019, quashing the order impugned. 9. We notice that as against Annexure-D judgment, Writ Appeal No.1539/2019 was filed by the BEML Canteen Karmikara Sangha (R). Paragraphs No.7 and 9 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.11.2019 in Writ Appeal No.1539/2019 reads as under:- "7. 9. We notice that as against Annexure-D judgment, Writ Appeal No.1539/2019 was filed by the BEML Canteen Karmikara Sangha (R). Paragraphs No.7 and 9 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.11.2019 in Writ Appeal No.1539/2019 reads as under:- "7. Perusal of the order dated 16 th January 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CCC No.1340 of 2018 clearly shows that the grievance of the Complainant (present appellant) was that the direction issued by the Division Bench in the order dated 12 th March 2016 has not been complied with. The Division Bench quoted the order of the learned Single Judge which was modified by the Judgment and Award dated 12 th March 2015 by the Division Bench. In paragraph No.4 of the said judgment and order in the Contempt Petition, the Division Bench has gone into the nature of the directions issued in the Judgment and Award as modified by the Division Bench. Ultimately, in paragraph No.8, the Division Bench held thus: "In the circumstances, we find it appropriate to drop the contempt proceedings as we are satisfied that the accused has paid the salaries to the workmen in accordance with the direction issued by this Court. If the workmen or complainants are still dissatisfied or have got any grievance with regard to payment or if there is any arrears of amount or benefits to be granted to the workmen, liberty is reserved to them to seek the same in accordance with law and particularly having regard to Section 33 (C) of the Act." (Underline supplied) 8. xxx xxx 9. Now coming to the order of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bengaluru impugned before the learned Single Judge, it is true that when the said order was passed, the aforesaid Contempt Petition was not decided. The said order refers to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. In paragraph No.5, there is a finding recorded that award is modified partly without extending welfare benefits and other allowances on par with the unskilled workmen of the first respondent. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Petition filed by the appellant is that salaries have been paid as per the order of the Division Bench dated 12 th March 2015." 10. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Petition filed by the appellant is that salaries have been paid as per the order of the Division Bench dated 12 th March 2015." 10. The Writ Appeal No.1539/2019 was therefore dismissed upholding Annexure 'D' the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.04.2019. 11. The matter was again taken up before the Apex Court in SLP No.17170/2020, which was also disposed of specifically noticing that Section 33C proceedings were pending before the CGIT. In the light of the categoric findings referred to above, it is contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge is clearly against the facts of the instant case as also against the clear directions and findings of earlier decisions of this Court including the CCC Order, Annexure-D judgment as well as in Writ Appeal No.1539/2019. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that there are clear directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010. It is submitted that in spite of the categoric findings of the Division Bench of this Court, the benefits have not been made available to the employees. It is submitted that the employees are still treated as contract employees by the Management and there is clear violation of the award as modified by the order of the Division Bench. It is submitted that there is a clear option available to the workmen to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act or to seek prosecution under Section 34 of the ID Act. It is submitted that the rejection of the application was therefore completely illegal. 13. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge had heard both sides and considered the merits of the matter and had come to the conclusion that what was pending before the CGIT was only an application with regard to the pending arrears and that the request for prosecution under Section 34 of the ID Act in respect of future payments was therefore perfectly maintainable. 14. The learned counsel also places reliance on a judgment of this Court in F.K. Menzlin v. B.P. Premakumar, 1990 (4) LAWS(KAR) 2. 15. We have considered the contentions advanced. 14. The learned counsel also places reliance on a judgment of this Court in F.K. Menzlin v. B.P. Premakumar, 1990 (4) LAWS(KAR) 2. 15. We have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear that the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru had considered an industrial dispute and had held that the employees of the BEML canteen are entitled to regular salary and other conditions of service as are applicable to the workers of BEML. The matter was taken up before this Court in Writ Petition No.35453/2003 (L-RES). The Management as well as the Union preferred writ appeals as against the judgment dated 16.04.2010. The said appeals were heard together and disposed of by judgment dated 12.03.2015. It was held that the workmen of the BEML canteen at Mysuru are entitled for equal wages on par with the permanent unskilled workers of the BEML. However, the arrears of difference in salaries and emoluments to the workmen was reduced to 35%. Though the said judgment was taken an appeal by the BEML before the Apex Court, the SLP was dismissed on 10.08.2015 and the judgment became final. The BEML took a contention that the arrears as directed had been given and that the workmen were being paid the salary as was being paid to regular workmen of the BEML. 16. The employees filed Contempt of Court Case which was dropped on a finding that the accused has paid the salaries to the workmen in accordance with the directions of the Court. However, liberty was granted to the workmen to get redressal for any further grievances by approaching the CGIT under Section 33C of the ID Act. The Company has made available statements of calculations, pointing out that payments of salary as is being paid to regular employees is extended to the workmen of the canteen as well. It is not in dispute that the workmen had also made an application under Section 33C of the ID Act before the CGIT, which is pending. Statements of Objections have also been filed by the Company and the matter is being considered by the CGIT. 17. Section 33C(2) and 34 of the ID Act reads as follows:- 33C. It is not in dispute that the workmen had also made an application under Section 33C of the ID Act before the CGIT, which is pending. Statements of Objections have also been filed by the Company and the matter is being considered by the CGIT. 17. Section 33C(2) and 34 of the ID Act reads as follows:- 33C. Recovery of money due from an employer: xxx xxx (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. 34. Cognizance of offences: (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government. (2) No Court inferior to that of [a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class] shall try any offence punishable under this Act." 18. Having considered the contentions advanced and having perused the judgments which are placed before us, we are of the opinion that the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge that what was pending before the CGIT in 33C(2) of the ID Act was different in essence from the grievance raised by the workmen under Section 34 of the ID Act is a factually incorrect statement. We are of the opinion that since the workmen had made a conscious decision to approach the Tribunal, filing an application under Section 33C of the ID Act complaining of violation of the terms of the award, they cannot thereafter file an application under Section 34 of the ID Act in respect of the very same non- compliance. We are of the opinion that since the workmen had made a conscious decision to approach the Tribunal, filing an application under Section 33C of the ID Act complaining of violation of the terms of the award, they cannot thereafter file an application under Section 34 of the ID Act in respect of the very same non- compliance. In the light of the findings in Annexure - D judgment as affirmed in W.A.No.1539/2019 and SLP (Civil) No.17170/2020 as also the clear findings in the judgment rendered in the Contempt of Court Cases, the writ appeal has to succeed. 19. In the result: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10264/2022, is set aside. (iii) The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the parties before the CGIT, which shall endeavor to pass appropriate orders on the application under Section 33C of the ID Act without undue delay. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.