Judgment :- 1. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a petition under S.33C(2) before the 3rd respondent seeking computation of benefit in the nature of bonus on 7 day's wages for the year 1978-79 complaining that the 7 day's wages earned for the National and Festival holidays under the Kerala Industrial Establishment (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') was not taken into account in the calculation and the disbursement of 17 3/4 bonus declared for the year. The management resisted the claim on two grounds, (a) The claim is not maintainable under S.33C(2) and (b) that the wages paid for 7 days under the Act is not'wages' for the purpose of The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (for short Bonus Act). 2. Repelling the above contentions of the management the 3rd respondent has held that the claim petition is maintainable and declared that 7 day's wages earned under the Act shall be taken into account in determining the bonus payable under The Payment of Bonus Act. It is this order, Ext. P1, which is under challenge in this OP. 3. S.22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 provides that where any dispute arises between an employer and his employees with respect to the bonus payable under this Act. or with respect to the application of the Act, then, such dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or of any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of Industrial Disputes in force in a State and the provisions of that Act or, as the case may be, such law, shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply accordingly. It can thus be seen that S.22 has created a legal fiction whereunder the disputes aforesaid are deemed to be industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act or any other corresponding law and the provisions of the I.D. Act or other law will apply for the settlement of such disputes. 4. It can thus be seen that S.22 has created a legal fiction whereunder the disputes aforesaid are deemed to be industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act or any other corresponding law and the provisions of the I.D. Act or other law will apply for the settlement of such disputes. 4. From the facts mentioned supra, it is clear that the Management has disputed the right of the petitioner to have the 7 days' wages earned for the National and Festival holidays for the period in question, taken into account for the purpose of calculation and disbursement of the bonus and if that be so the said dispute must be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the I.D. Act, going by S.22 of the Payment of Bonus Act. If it is an Industrial Dispute then it is mandatory that the same shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions specifically provided for under the I. D. Act or other laws mentioned in S.22. 5. It is well established by judicial pronouncements that the power exercised by the Labour Court under S.33C(2) is akin to the power exercised by an Execution Court. Like the Execution Court, the Labour Court under S.33C (2) would be competent to interpret the award on which the claim is based and if necessary to consider the plea that the award sought to be enforced is a nullity. The Labour Court has also the power to investigate and resolve disputes other than disputes made mention of in S.22 by invoking the provisions of the T.D. Act or such other corresponding law for investigation and settlement of such disputes. Those disputes are not industrial disputes as defined in those Acts, however they can be dealt with and disposed of by the Labour Court by virtue of S.39 of the Payment of Bonus Act. 6. S.39 of the Bonus Act makes available for settling the disputes other than disputes mentioned in S.22, the machinery provided in the I.D Act and other corresponding laws for adjudication of such disputes. 6. S.39 of the Bonus Act makes available for settling the disputes other than disputes mentioned in S.22, the machinery provided in the I.D Act and other corresponding laws for adjudication of such disputes. For instance if a dispute were to arise as regards the quantum of available surplus which is the basis for determining the bonus, such a dispute not being an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of S.22 of the Bonus Act, can be settled in a proceeding initiated under S.33C(2) of the I.D. Act because S.39 of the Bonus Act by providing that the provisions of the Bonus Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the I. D. Act or such corresponding law, makes available the machinery in that Act or the corresponding Act for investigation of such disputes. That does not mean that the Labour Court under S.33C (2) has the power to decide a dispute which is an'Industrial Dispute' within the meaning of S.22 of the Bonus Act. 7. The pleadings of the parties in the case do show that the disputes sought to be settled in the proceedings is an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of S.22 of the Bonus Act. The Labour Court therefore has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in a proceeding under S.33(C)(2) I.D. Act. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is liable to be vacated. I accordingly quash Ext. PI. The OP. is allowed. No order as to costs. Allowed.