JUDGMENT
Sreedharan Nair, J.
1. The Railway Administration is challenging Ext. P.-7 order passed by the third respondent, Labour Court, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction in going into the question as to whether respondents 1 and 2 who were petitioners before it had the right to the relief claimed and whether the Railway Administration was liable to pay the amounts claimed against them. By Ext. P.-7, it is argued that the Labour Court adjudicated on the above stated questions and thereafter directed the railways to pay the amounts mentioned therein to respondents 1 and 2. This was beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and hence liable to be quashed.
2. Though notice was served on the respondents, none entered appearance to contest the claim.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the original of Ext. P.-3 application before the third respondent Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their contention was that they were working from 15-3-1980 to 14-6-1980, from 15-3-1981 to 14-6-1981, from 15-3-1982 to 14-6-1982, from 15-3-1983 to 14-6-1983, from 15-3-1984 to 14-6-1984 and from 15-3-1985 to 14-6-1985 as seasonal water carriers. They claimed temporary status from 12-4-1981 onwards. According to them they were paid daily wages at Rs. 5.25, 7.40, 10.60, 11.40 and 14.10 respectively for the above mentioned periods. Therefore they claimed that they must be treated as in the grade of Rs. 196-232 and that the difference be paid. On that basis each petitioner before the Labour Court claimed a sum of Rs. 2794.24.
4. The Railway raised a contention that the casual watermen became eligible for temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous employment in pursuance to the circular issued by the Railway Board on 25-1-1985, that the temporary status can be claimed only from 1985 and that the claim put forward from 12-4-1981 is not sustainable.
5. The Labour Court dealt with the question as to whether the petitioners before it were entitled to claim temporary status from 15-3-1981 onwards. On the basis of Ext. P-S communication issued by the Divisional Office, Palghat on 3-7-1984 the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the water carriers are entitled to temporary status with effect from 21-10-1980. Accordingly the amount was quantified in Ext. P-7.
6. A Labour Court while dealing with a petition Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is to calculate the amount of money due to the workman from his employer. If the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money that can be computed and the workman given the money. The said calculation or computation should be on the basis of an existing right to money or benefit which had previously adjudicated. If the right to the money or benefit which is sought to be computed is disputed, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate on that in a peition filed Under Section 33-C(2). The question as to whether the workman is entitled to the benefit is beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words, the determination of the question as to whether the employee is entitled to the right claimed by him as also to whether the employer is liable to pay the amount claimed by the employee are not to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court while dealing with the petition Under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act Vide C.J.W.T. Corporation v. Workmen (AIR 1974 SC 1604).
7. In the instant case by Ext P-1 order issued by the Railway Board temporary status was granted to watermen engaged during summer seasons from 1985 onwards only. The claim of the workmen to have temporary status from 21-10-1980 was disputed. That dispute should not have been adjudicated by the Labour Court. In such a view the Labour Court was clearly in error in quantifying the monetary claim put forth by the workmen. Respondents 1 and 2 could claim monetary benefit attached to the temporary status conferred by Ext. P-1 only from the year 1985. The decision of the Labour Court quantifying the benefits claimed by respondents 1 and 2 with effect from 21.10.1980, on the basis that they are entitled to the temporary status with effect from that date is clearly erroneous. Ext. P-7 is one passed without jurisdiction.
In view of what has been stated above, I quash Ext. P-7 order of the third respondent.
The original petition is allowed.
Issue photo copy of this judgment to the parties on usual terms.