JUDGMENT D. S. Bajpai, J. - The petitioner, Bahraich District Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award of the Labour Court dated 7-8-1984 (Annexure 4) and has further prayed for directions in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said award. 2. It so appears that the respondent No. 1, Ram Naresh Pathak, was appointed as a Clerk/Cashier in the petitioner bank and the appointment is alleged to have been in a purely temporary capacity. Thereafter the said respondent was again appointed for a specified period on the said post. The respondent No. 1 made an application to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, the respondent No. 2, under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as the U. P. Act) and Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A copy of the application of the respondent No. 1 has been placed on record of the writ petition as Annexure 1. In this application it was prayed firstly that annual increment after completion of one years service be granted : secondly, that annual increment including special allowance should be calculated and dearness allowance payable thereon be granted, thirdly, that the customary bonus which was not based on the profits be granted since it was part of the salary to the respondent, fourthly, that 12% interest be paid to the respondent since the petitioner had made earning at the said rate on the amount of the respondent No. 1 withheld and, lastly, the respondent No 1 had prayed for expenses of the proceedings and the damages incurred by him in continuation of the same. The petitioner contested and filed a written reply, inter alia, asserting that there was no notification appointing the respondent No. 2 to adjudicate the application under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Act read with Section 33-C (?) of the Act and that the proceedings being in the nature of execution proceedings, the Labour Court was not competent to adjudicate the merit of the claim of the workman. It was the stand oi the petitioner that the claim of the workman itself being disputed by the petitioner, the Labour Court was not competent to proceed with the matter and determine the rights of the claimant to receive the benefit and could not be granted the reliefs claimed. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 1 where after by an award dated 7-8-1984 (Annexure 4) the Labour Court granted the relief claimed by the respondent No. 1. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 1-2-1985, but the prayer of the petitioner for staying the implemention of the impugned award ex-parte was not considered at the admission stage and notice were ordered to be issued to the respondent No. 1. 3. have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. have also gone through the affidavits exchanged between the parties. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court at Gorakhpur, the respondent No. 2 had no authority to adjudicate the application of the respondent No. 1 under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Act read with Section 33-C (2) of the Act is belied by Government Notification dated 20th May, 1970 issued by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (3) of Article 43 of the Constitution under sub-section (2) of Section 6-H of the U. P. Act authorising the Labour Court, Agra and Gorakhpur under the Notification referred to "determine the money value of any benefit referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 6-H of the said Act in the whole of Uttar Pradesh." The said notification further empowers the said Labour Court under the Act powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3J-C of the Act also to "determine the money value of any benefit referred to in the said sub-section in the whole of Uttar Pradesh." This Notification has been placed on record of the writ petition as enclosure No. 1 to the affidavit of Subhash Chandra Bahukhandi, Joint Secretary to the Government of U. P. in the Labour Department, dated May 8, 1986. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it has been categorically asserted : "10. That regarding the facts mentioned in paras 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur are not admitted. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it has been categorically asserted : "10. That regarding the facts mentioned in paras 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur are not admitted. It is stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 6-H of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. XXVIII of 1947) Government has issue Notification No. 2984 (ST) 3/XXXVI-A-208 (ST)-63 dated May 20, 1970 ordering that the Labour Court Agra and Gorakhpur constituted under the said notification of Section 6-H of the said Act in the whole of U\P. In the same notification in exercise of the powers on feared by sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. XIV of 194?) the Labour Courts have been authorised to determine the money value of any benefit referred to in the said sub-section in the whole of U. P. The contentions are wholly misconceived and are not tenable." 5. This position has not been challenged at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the Labour Court, Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 1) and to decide it. 6. In so far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that, in any case, the Labour Court could not adjudicate the merits of the claim and hold the respondent No. 1 to be entitled to the reliefs claimed in view of the fact that the proceedings were only in the nature of execution proceedings where merits of the matter could not be decided rendering the impugned award illegal and without jurisdiction, it will be necessary to consider the provisions of Section 16-H (2) of the U. P. Act which provide : "(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be determined by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in sub-section (1)." 7. Sub-section (1) provides for recovery of the amount by issue of a certificate to the Collector who is empowered to recover the same as if it were an arrear of land revenue. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 33-C of the Act are similar in nature and the procedure for recovery is also by issue of a certificate to the Collector who has to proceed to recover the amount as if it were an arrear of land revenue. Needless to say that sub section (2) of Section 33-C of the Act and subsection (2) of Section 6-H of the U. P. Act clearly provide that in case question is raised by any one about the amount of money due to him or the extent of the quantum of benefit to which he is entitled, then the subject-matter has to be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified by the appropriate Government. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the subject-matter of the application of the respondent No. f was determination of the amount of money due and the benefits to which he was entitled and that had to be computed by the Labour Court duly authorised. The Labour Court being duly authorised, as held hereinabove, had to compute the amount and do not find any error committed by the said court in passing the award, contained in Annexure 4. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Surajmal Mahta. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Ujjain and another, AIR 1964 Madhya Pradesh 312 to canvass that under Section 33-C (2) of the Act a special court has expressly to be constituted "for computation in terms of money any benefit claimed by a workman under the provisions of Chapter V-A or under any settlement or award " This case does not, in any way, hold the petitioner and reinforce the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the Labour Court, Gorakhpur being duly constituted and empowered to decide matters under Sections 33-C (2) of the Act and 6-H (2) of the U. P. Act by notification duly issued by the appropriate Government, it was within the jurisdiction to make computations and pass the impugned award in favour of the workman. Another decision which the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied was in the case of General Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workman and another, 1974 Lab IC 1018, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that: "A proceeding under Section 33-C (2) is a proceeding, generally, in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. The Labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money of benefit, in view of its being previously adjudicated, or, otherwise, duly provided for." Here in the instant case the Labour Court acted within its right in computing the amount since the computation has been proceeded by the Labour Court on the basis of Joshi Award and which has been admitted by the petitioner to be applicable to it and as such the right of the respondent No. 1 to make claim under the Joshi Award was not under dispute. The extent of benefit and the amount of money was only to be computed and the Labour Court has rightly done so. 9. No other point has been seriously canvassed before me. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.