In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged Annexure F award dated 27.11.91 passed by the first respon­dent, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Misc. Case No. 7 of 1989. 2. About 65 workmen of Bhuyankhat Tea Estate represented by the Secretary, All Assam Cbah Sramik Sangha, Sonari, District Sibsagar the second respondent approached the first respondent for an award of monetary benefit amounting to Rs. 1,52,880/- on account of house rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month for those 65 workmen for the period from 1984 to 1987 and monetary benefit in lieu of firewood not supplied by the management of Bhuyankhat Tea Estate for the said period. 3. The case of the workmen is that they are workmen of Rongbari Division of Bhuyankhat Tea Estate and the members of a recognised Union of which the second respondent is the Secretary. Under section 15 (2) of the Assam Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and Rule 66 of the Assam Plantation Labour Rules, 1956 they are entitled to monetary benefits claimed as per Schedule of claim in Ext. 2. The claim was repudiated by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Labour Court, filed written statement and additional written statement. The petitioner asserted that as per Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.10.86, a non-resident permanent worker of tea plantation entitled to residential accommodation as per section 15 (b) of the Plantation Labour Act would be entitled to receive house rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and house rent at this rate had been paid for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 to all non-resident permanent workers of all the tea estates of the company including the aforesaid 65 members whom the second respondent is representing. Some workers of Rongbari Tea Estate refused to accept rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- in the year 1988 although they accepted such house rent for the year 1987 and 1989. Regarding the firewood or cash compensation in lieu of firewood to the non-resident permanent workers, according to the Management, as per clause (2) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 2.3.87 an agreement was 'signed on 16.1.90 by and between the Union and the Manager, Bhuyankhat Tea Estate. It was agreed that an amount of cash compensation in lieu of firewood to all permanent non-resident workers would be paid at the rate of Rs. It was agreed that an amount of cash compensation in lieu of firewood to all permanent non-resident workers would be paid at the rate of Rs. 120/-per month per family for the year 1988-89 and at the rate of Rs. 150/- for the year 1989-90 and such payments had been made as agreed upon to all the non-resident permanent workers' families includ-ng the aforesaid workmen of Rongbari Tea Estate which will be evident from the register maintained by them. In the additional written statement the management challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the claim for monetary benefit under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that the State Government did not empower the Labour Court to adjudicate the claim of such a nature. Besides, the management also contended that there was no such settlement or agreement or award for payment of cash compensation in lieu of firewood at the rate of Rs. 228/- per annum for the years 1984 to 1987 as claimed. They further contended that the claim of the workmen being not based on an existing right, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order under section 33C (2). The first respondent, however, rejected the plea of the management and held that a sum of Rs. 1.32.880/-was payable towards house rent and firewood for 4 years and the award was made accordingly. While making the award, the Labour "Court rejected the claim of the management on the ground of non-filing of the original documents, namely, Exts. Ka, Kha and Ga and also in absence of any clear and categorical assertion binding the workmen as being signatories of the Memoraadum of Settlement. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide, the first respondent referred to a notification dated 18.5.68 empowering the Labour Court, Dibrugarh to adjudicate the claim under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the present petition. 4. I have heard Mr. PK Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents though notices were duly served on the respondents. 5. The submission of Mr. Hence the present petition. 4. I have heard Mr. PK Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents though notices were duly served on the respondents. 5. The submission of Mr. Goswami is that under section 33C (2) the Labour Court has jurisdiction only when any workman entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if such question arises to as the amount of money due or as to the amount at which the benefit should be computed, a specified Labour Court may decide the matter and send the same to the State Government. In the instant case, admittedly, there is neither any settlement nor any award which entitles the workmen to receive monetary benefit, such as house rent @ Rs. 228/- per annum for the year 1984 to 1987. The invocation of power under section 33C (2) is, therefore, misconceived and the impugned award is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 6. Originally the Industrial Disputes Act did not provide any speedy remedy to individual employees for enforcement of their rights. No remedy was available to an individual employee who did not raise an industrial dispute. Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate) Tribunal Act, 1950 (since repealed), however, provided a procedure for recovery of money from the employer under an award or decision. By this provision an attempt was made to remove the defect for enforcement of the rights of employees. By this section a remedy was provided to an individual workman to implement or execute the relief given to the employee by an award. Sub-section (1) of the said section provided that if any money was due to an employee from an employer under an award or a decision, the employee could recover it from the employer as an arrear of land revenue or as a public demand by an appropriate Government on an application made to it by the employee. Sub-section (2) of the section dealt with a case where a workman was entitled to receive from an employer any benefit under an award or a decision by a Tribunal which was capable of being computed in terms of money. The amount so determined could be recovered as provided under sub-section (1) of the said section. Sub-section (2) of the section dealt with a case where a workman was entitled to receive from an employer any benefit under an award or a decision by a Tribunal which was capable of being computed in terms of money. The amount so determined could be recovered as provided under sub-section (1) of the said section. Sub-section (2) of the said section corresponds to present section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act with some distinctions. In 1953 the Legislature took up further step by providing for additional right to the workmen of the industrial dispute. From the legislative history it will appear that Legislature after providing the procedure for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes on the basis of collective bargaining, recognised the need of an individual workman of a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights and, therefore, introduced section 33A in 1950 and 33C in 1956. By these two sections individual workmen can enforce their rights without having to take recourse to section 10(1) and without having to depend on their Union to espouch their cases. Section 33C (1) applies to cases where money is due to workmen under an award or settlement, etc. already calculated and ascertained and, therefore, there is no dispute about the computation. But sub-section (2) applies both to non-monetary as well as monetary benefit. In the case of monetary benefit, it applies where such monetary benefit though due is not calculated and there is a dispute regarding calculation. Section 33C (2) applies to cases where workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employer. The duty of the Labour Court is only to interpreter the award or settlement on which the workmen's right rests. Therefore, section 33C (2) presupposes an existing right of the employee which requires certain interpretation. 7. Proceedings under section 33C(2) are therefore, analogous to execution proceedings and the Labour Court called upon to compute in terms of monetary benefit claimed by a workman is in such case in the position of executing Court, the Labour Court like the executing Court in execution proceedings governed by the Civil Procedure Code, is competent under section 33C to interprete the award or settlement where the benefit is claimed under such award or settlement. To invoke the power under section 33C (2) a workman must satisfy first that he is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money. A question should have arisen as to (i) the amount of money actually due, (ii) the amount at which the benefit should be computed. 8. In the instant case the Labour Court ignored the settlement and gave the award directing payment as claimed. In my opinion, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass an award directing the management to make payment in the absence of any existing right as claimed. In this regard Mr. Goswami has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh vs. Suresh Chand & another, (1978) 2 SCC 144 . In the said case the Supreme Court considered the scope of section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. While dealing with the said section the Supreme Court observed thus : "...It is now well-settled, as a result of several decisions of this Court, that a proceeding under section 33C (2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution proceeding in which 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, proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. But the right to the money which is sought to be calculated or 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 relation to the relationship between the industrial workman, and his employer ." The Supreme Court further observed : " It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under section 33C (2) to arrogate to itself the functions of an industrial tribunal and entertain a claim which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject-mater of an industrial dispute in a reference under section 10 of the Act..." 9. As stated above, the Presiding Officer Labour Court rejected the Memorandum of Settlement relied on by the management and granted the relief without there being any other award or settlement in favour of the workmen. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Goswami. Accordingly, I set aside the Annexure F award dated 27.11.91. In the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.