J. K. MEHRA, (ORAL), J.

(1) IN the present case the Management of MCD is challenging the decision of the Labour Court rendered under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby the Labour Court had taken upon itself in an application under Section 33-C (2) the determination of the dispute relating to conditions of service between the employer and employee and the entitlement of the workman on the basis of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Dhirender Chamoli and Surender Singh. The determination of right is not based on the contract of employment or any prior adjudication and is in the nature of determination which could be undertaken only as a reference of the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such prior determination or written contract of employment alone give rise to an existing right in favour of the workman and only the benefits flowing there from can be computed under Section 33- C (2) of the Industrial. Disputes Act. This question has since been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in "mcd Vs. Ganesh Razak and Anr. " and other connected civil appeals reported as JT 1994 (7) SC 476 [LQ/SC/1994/1004] . Mr. Aggarwal concedes that the case of the present respondent is covered by the said judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. I, in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Satish Kumar and Another C. W. P. No. 5137/94 and municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Ram Kumar and Another C. W. P. No. 3089/94 decided on 24th January 1996 have, following the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, taken the same view as above. Both counsel have agreed that the present case is covered by the said judgment and that in the light thereof the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the circumstances the petition is accepted and the Rule is made absolute and the impugned order of the Labour Court is set aside.

(2) NO order as to costs.