Judgment Ram Nandan Prasad, J. 1. The Bihar Water Development Corporation, patna through its Managing Director, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court for quashing the decision dated 6-10-1982 of the Presiding Officer, Labour court, Patna, (opposite party No.1) in Misc. Case No.22 of 1975 which had been filed before the Labour Court under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by opposite party No.2, bachulal who is an employee of the Corporation, 2. Opposite party No.2 had been appointed in 1953 in the department of irrigation in the Government of Bihar as a tube-well operator (in short T. W. O.)in the scale of Rs.28-40 in the category of a class-IV employee. The recommendation of the 2nd Pay Revision Committee (P. R. C. in short) came into force with effect from 1-4-1962 under which opposite party No.2 was placed in the revised scale of Rs.75-85 as recommended by the P. R. C. Me continued to be a class-IV employee. The recommendations of the 3rd Pay Revision Committee were given effect from 1-1-1971 and in consequence of the same O P. No.2 was placed in the revised scale of Rs.165-204 which corresponded to the earlier scale of Rs.75-85. He, however, claimed that he comes in the category of Pump chalak (Pump Driver) and as such he should be given the Pay scale of Rs.220-315 which had been recommended by the 3rd P. R. C. in respect of the pump Drivers. 3. By Government Order No.844 dated 28-2-1974, the Bihar Water development Corporation was created (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation)and the services of a large number of Staff of the Irrigation Department including tube-well Operators were transferred to the Corporation, with the stipulation that their service conditions in all respects will continue to be the same as before untill new rules in this regards are framed. It is the admitted position that no rules have been framed so far, and as such it is accepted that recommendations of the Pay Revision Committees appointed by the Government are also applicable to O. P. No.2 as well as other staff of the Corporation. Since the claim of O. P. No.2 to be placed in the revised scale of Rs.220-315, was not acceptable to the government or the Corporation, he filed C. W. J. C. No.1484 of 1975 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 16-7-19/5. Since the claim of O. P. No.2 to be placed in the revised scale of Rs.220-315, was not acceptable to the government or the Corporation, he filed C. W. J. C. No.1484 of 1975 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 16-7-19/5. Thereafter on 4-10-1975 he filed his application before the Labour Court, Patna under section 33-C (2) of the act. The claim of O. P. No.2 was contested by the State of Bihar (Irrigation department) petitioner No.2 here, and the Corporation and its officers (petitioner nos.1 and 3 to 5), firstly on the ground that the application under Sec.33-C (2) was not maintainable as the Labour Court could only compute the amount of money that may fall due to a workman on the basis of existing right but it has no jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the right and entitlement of the workman would fall within one category or the other listed in the Pay Revision committee report, and they also seriously challenged the claim of O. P. No.2 that he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.220-315. The learned Labour Court held that the application of O. P. No.2 was within the scope of Sec.33-C (2)of the Act and hence maintainable and it also held that the O. P. No.2 was entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315 as mentioned in the report of the 3rd Pay Revision Committee for Pump Drivers. It is against this decision (Annexnre-1) that the present writ application has been filed. 4. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Labour Court on both counts as they had done before that court itself. Both these points are interrelated. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the claim or benefit which may be computed under Sec.33-C (2) has to be done on the basis of what is already existing under any settlement or award and it will not be open to the Labour Court while exercising its jurisdiction under this section to enter into an inquiry as to whether the claim or right of the workman should be something different than what has been provided in the award or settlement. It was thus argued that adrnittadly O. P. No.2 was initially appointed on the pay scale of rs.28-40 in class-IV category which subsequently was revised to Rs.75-85 under the 2nd Pay Revision Committee and again revised Rs.165-204 under the 3rd P. R. C. but even after those revisions he continued to be a class-IV employee and he was never upgraded or placed in the category of class-III employee. It was also pointed out that O. P. No.2 was appointed as a Tube-well Operator and designated as such (which has been admitted by him while deposing before Labour Court as A, W.-l) and this designation was never changed and he was never designated as a Pump Driver. Further, as the 3rd P. R. C. report shows, even Pump Drivers have been placed in two categories ; Pump drivers grade-2 who were previously in the scale of Rs.75-85 have been given the new scale of Rs.165-204 under 3rd P. R. C. while the othere class of Pump drivers which was previously in the scale of Rs.105-155 has been put by the 3rd P. R. C. in the scale of Rs.220-315. It was, therefore, urged on behalf of the petitioners that in any view of the matter the existing scale for the O. P. No.2 under the 3rd P. R. C. is Rs.165-204 and his case for being given the Pay scale of Rs.205-315 actually amounts to asking the Labour Court to adjudicate about his right of entitlement to the higher scale, and this is beyond the scope of Sec.33-C (2) of the Act as it would amount to adjudication and not mere computation on the basis of existing right. 5. The petitioners have urged that while dealing with an application under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act, the Labour Court functions like an Executive court, and it cannot go behind or beyond what has been already prescribed by the Pay Revision Committee for a particular employee or class of employees as to in which pay scale a particular employee ought to be placed or ought to have been placed. In this context, the petitioners have relied on two decisions of the supreme Court, namely, Central India Water Transport Corpn. In this context, the petitioners have relied on two decisions of the supreme Court, namely, Central India Water Transport Corpn. V/s. Workmen air 1974, S. C. page 1604 : 1974 Labour and Industrial Cases page 1018 and chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Company V/s. Rameshwar and others, AIR 1968 SC 218 In both these decisions the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that a proceeding under Sec.33-C (2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding and the labour Court should clearly understand the limitations which it has to function while dealing with such a proceeding and it can not arrogate to itself the function of an Industrial Tribunal. In the C. I. W. T. Corporations case (Supra), their Lordships referred to the earlier decision in the East India coal Companys case (Supra) and observed as follows: - "it is now well-settled that a proceeding under Sec.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 meney, the labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. This calculation or computation follows that there exists an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being previously adjudged or otherwise, duly provided for. In Chief Mining Engineer East india Coal Co. Ltd. V/s. Rameshwar, (1968) 1 SCR 140 : AIR 1968 sc 218 it was reiterated that proceedings under Sec.33-C (2) are analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court called upon to compute in terms of money the benefit claimed by the workmen is in such cases in the position of an executing court. In was also reiterated that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in ralation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer. In was also reiterated that the right to the benefit which is sought to be computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the course of and in ralation to the relationship between an industrial workman and his employer. " On the basis of these decisions the petitioners have contended that the Labour court could only compute or determine what benefits were available to O. P. No.2 as per the scale in which he was placed under the 3rd Pay Revision Committee and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to say that the scale of Rs.205-315, which is meant for a class-III employee, should be applicable to the O. P, No.2. 6. It was submitted on behalf of respondent No.2 that no doubt the determination and computation of the claim under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act is to be on the basis of the existing right but "existing right" does not mean "admitted right". In other words, merely because the management disputes the claim of the workman, it does not mean that the determination of the claim goes beyond the scope of Sec.33-C (2) of the Act If that were so then merely putting forward a challenge or objection by the Management would be sufficient to nullify the operation of Sec.33-C (2) of the Act. 7. In support of his contention O. P. No.2 relied on the decision of the supreme Court in 1963 Labour Law Journal-Volume-II page 89 Central Bank of india V/s. Rajgopalan ). In that case the question related to the interpretation of para 164 (b) (i) of the Shastri Award. The workman, who was respondent before the Supreme Court, had claimed that besides performing his routine duty as clerk he had been operating the adding machine in the clearing department and as such he was entitled to the payment of Rs.10/-per month as special allowance for operating the adding machine as provided under paragraph 164 (b) (i) of the shastri Award. The Management (Central Bank of India) had resisted this claim inter-alia on the ground that since the matter involved the interpretation of the shastri Award, it was out-side the purview of Sec.33-C (2) of the Act. The Management (Central Bank of India) had resisted this claim inter-alia on the ground that since the matter involved the interpretation of the shastri Award, it was out-side the purview of Sec.33-C (2) of the Act. In this context it had been urged by the Bank that a certain amount of manipulative skill is required for the handling of the camptometer and this art of operating a camptometer has to be learnt by training over several months but the work of operating the adding machine needs no special training and does not require even the skill which a typist has to show. On this basis it was urged by the Central bank of India (appellant) that the employee was not entitled to any special allowance. In order to determine the point at issue, their Lordships briefly dealt with the legislative history of Sec.33-C (2) of the Act to indicate the sprit and necessity of making this provision, namely, providing for speedy remedy to individual workmen to enforce their existing individual rights. While indicating how the scope of Sec.33-C (2) differs from the scope of Sec.10 (i) of the Act, their lordships observed as follows : "in our opinion, on a fair and reasonable construction of Sub-section (2)it is clear that if workmans right to receive the benefit is disputed, that may have to be determined by the labour court. Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of money, the labour court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that benefit. If the said right is not disputed nothing more needs to be done and the labour court can proceed to compute the value of the benefit in terms of money ; but if the said right is disputed, the labour court must deal with that question and decide whether the workman has the right to receive the benefit as alleged by him and it is only if the labour court answers this point in favour of the workmen that the next question of making the necessary computation can arise. " Proceeding further their Lordships observed : "the claim uuder section 33-C (2) clearly postulales that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be proceeded by an enquiry into the existence of that right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main determination which has been assigned to the labour court by sub-section (2 ). . . . " We must accordingly hold that Sec.33-C (2) takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled would be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. 8 On the basis of the observations of the Supreme Court in the Central bank case, it was urged on behalf of the O. P No.2 that the Labour court was perfectly justiiicd in making an incidental inquiry for determination as to whether the claim of O. P. No.2 would be on the basis of the pay scale of rs.165-204 or the pay scale of Rs.205-315. It was also pointed out that even in the case reported in AIR 1974 3c 1604, the Supreme Court had observed that it was within the competence of the Labour Court while dealing with an application under Sec.33-C (2) to enter into an incidental inquiry for determining whether the workman was entitled to the benefit claimed by him. 9. It has been submitted on behalf petitioners that the Labour court was certainly competent to enter into an incidantal enquiry but an incidental enquiry was not equavalent to adjudication as has been done by the labour court in the present case. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that admittedly the O. P. No.2 was appointed as class IV employee in the original pay scale of Rs.28-40 which was admittedly revised to Rs.75-85 under the second Pay Revision Committee report and the corresponding scale in the third Pay Revision Committees report is Rs.165-204. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that admittedly the O. P. No.2 was appointed as class IV employee in the original pay scale of Rs.28-40 which was admittedly revised to Rs.75-85 under the second Pay Revision Committee report and the corresponding scale in the third Pay Revision Committees report is Rs.165-204. It is also pointed out that the fixation of replacement scale did not mean up-grading of any class of employee as this was beyond the purview of second or third P. R. C and so the category of O. P. No.2, namely, class IV, remained unchanged even after the coming into effect of the third P. R. C. Hence the only existing basis on which the claim of the O. P. No.2 could be computed is the scale of Rs.165-204 for class IV category. It was submitted that the Labour Court misdirected itself by trying to consider that the duties and functions of O. P. No.2 were similar to those of Pump drivers placed in the scale of Rs.205 to 315. In this context, it was also pointed out by the petitioners that O. P. No.2 was never designated as Pump Driver but always as Tube-well Operator. It was further pointed out that under the third p. R. C. report, there are two categories of Pump Drivers ; one of them comes under the category of class IV employee and is placed under serial 2 72 and designated as Pump Driver grade-II with previous scale of Rs.75-85 and he has been put in the replacement scale under the third P. R. C. of Rs.165 to Rs.204. The second category is in the grade of class-III employee at serial No.163 and designated as Pump Driver whose previous scale was Rs.105-155 and has been placed by the third P. R. C. in the replacement scale of Rs.205-315. It has, thus, been argued that even if it be supposed for a moment that O. P. No 2 could be called and designated as a Pump Driver, even then it does not mean that he would fall in category of Pump Driver at serial No.163 of class-IIIemployee. It has, thus, been argued that even if it be supposed for a moment that O. P. No 2 could be called and designated as a Pump Driver, even then it does not mean that he would fall in category of Pump Driver at serial No.163 of class-IIIemployee. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the guiding criteria for determinig which particular pay scale would apply to O. P. No.2, even if he is to be designated as Pump Driver, is the previous corresponding scale of the category to which he belongs namely, class-IV, and the labour court seriously misdirected itself in over-looking this most important factor. In my opinion, there is force in this contention. A comparison of the second and third P. R C. reports clearly shows what is the corresponding scale for each category of the employee and further it is obvious that third P. R. C. did not upgrade any class of employee to a higher grade. The Labour Court could launch upon an incidental inquiry only if it was not clear as to what was the existing scale applicable. What the Labour court has sought to do is to determine as to in what scale O. P. No.2 ought to have been placed on the basis of his claim of performing same type of duties and functions as Pump Driver class-III. In this context Mr. K. D. Chatterjee drew our attention to the averments of O. P. No 2 in paragraph 20 of his counter-affidavit where he has stated that he and other employees like him were not fixed in a proper pay scale prior to the Third Pay revision and this wrong was continued even under third Pay Revision and the scale allotted to O. P. No.2 all along was lower than proper scale to which he and others like him were entitled. In other words, his prayer was for undoing the so called wrong of being placed even by the third Pay Revision Committee into a scale which is lower than that in which he ought to have been placed. Mr. Chaterjee has argued and rightly in my opinion that this meant asking for adjudication. This was obviously beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in a proceeding under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act. Mr. Chaterjee has argued and rightly in my opinion that this meant asking for adjudication. This was obviously beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in a proceeding under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act. The claim of O. P. No.2 was in effect a claim not based upon an existing right but based or his supposed right of benig placed in the scale of Rs.205 to Rs.315 and obviously the determination of such a claim was beyond the Sec.33-C (2 ). In my opinion, therefore, the labour court has obviously exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The claim put forward by the O. P. No.2 in his application was not maintainable inasmuch as it was beyond the scope of Sec.33-C (2)of the Act. 10. It was argued by Mr. K. D. Chatterjee on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Labour Court had adopted a queer reasoning incoming to the conclusion that O. P. No.2 should be deemed to have been placed in the scale of rs.220-3 i 5. Mr. Chatterjee pointed out that the Labour Court has observed that due to omission to supply necessary information by the concerned department, the case of Tube Well Operators was left out in the recommendation of the third p. R. C. , although this was nobodys case. He has further urged that even supposing that the case of Tube Well Operators was left by the third P. R. C. , then the situation could be rectified at the Government level and the learned labaur court should be have assumed the role of a Pay Revision Committee itself in order to determine in what particular scale the employee should be fitted. Mr. Chatterjee also urgued that the learned labour court has given a finding that Tube Well Operators have been performing the duties and functions similar to those of Pump Drivers but it has done so without indicating or examining what exactly are the duties and functions of the Pump Drivers and hence on this account also the finding of the labour court is vitiated. Since it has been held above that the finding regard-ring the pay scale applicable to the petitioner was beyond the scope of section 33-C (2) of the Act and the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in coming to such a finding, it is not necessary to examine, or to make observation in respect of, the reasonings given by the labour court in support of its finding. 11. In view of the above discussion, I find that the order of the labour court as contained in Annexure-1 is unsustainable and fit to be set aside because such an order was beyond the scope of a proceeding under Sec.33-C (2) of the act. Accordingly, the said order is hereby quashed. The application is allowed parties shall bear their own costs. Application allowed.