1997 INSC 0493
                                                    Union of India

                                                           Vs

                                          Gurbachan Singh and Another

                                            SLP (C) No. 9652 of 1997

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, D. P. Wadhwa JJ)

                                                      21.04.1997

                                                        ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. The respondent, when he entered into service did not place any documentary evidence like school
leaving certificate etc. in support of his date of birth. Consequently, his case came to be referred to
the Medical Board. Before the Medical Board, the respondent stated that his age was 20 years, but
the Board on the basis of his appearance and other features was of the opinion that he was around 25
years. He was due to retire from service on 30-11-1980. But he was allowed to retire on 30-11-1984.
On reference, the Railway Board gave the ex post facto sanction and directed the petitioner to retire
him w.e.f. 30-11-1984 and retain him in service from 1-12-1980 to 30-11-1984 after giving him re-
employment on usual terms and conditions. The respondent feeling aggrieved, filed application
before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming all
retiral benefits; the Labour Court granted him reliefs prayed for. The petitioners challenged the
order of the Labour Court in WP No. 9647 of 1996, which was dismissed by the High Court in
limine on 10-7-1996. Thus, this special leave petition.

3. The power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Court under Section 33-C(ii) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were dealt with by this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ganesh
Razak [(1995) 1 SCC 235 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 296 : (1995) 29 ATC 93). It was held that the Labour
Court is devoid of power and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claim or to give directions on that
basis. The Labour Court at best has power to interpret the award and then work out the wages
payable to the workmen it terms of the award etc. Shri Singhvi, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the petitioner, contends that in view of the above decision, the view taken by the
Labour Court is not correct in law. We find some force in the contention raised by the learned
counsel. However, in view of the law already settled by this Court in the above judgment, we think
that on the facts and circumstances, this case does not warrant interference. However, it is directed
that the judgment of the High Court or Labour Court should not be treated as a precedent for any
future cases as it is not consistent with the law laid down by this Court.

4. The Special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.