JUDGMENT : M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—Petitioner, the managing partner of Messrs. Victory Mills, Kannur, which was closed on January 13, 1987, challenges Exhibit P-5, award of the first respondent. In the claim petition (C.P. No. 9 of 1991) between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 37 (applicants), the first respondent held that the applicants are entitled to get closure compensation as claimed by them. 2. Claim of the applicants for gratuity was settled and it was agreed that the sale proceeds of the machinery of the factory would be deposited in the joint account of the two labour unions and the petitioner. The amount was accordingly deposited. It is thereafter that Claim Petition No. 9 of 1991 was filed before the first respondent for notice pay and closure compensation. 3. Petitioner contends that the application has been filed long after the aforesaid settlements and that Exhibit P-l pass book would show that the amount was deposited as agreed by the parties. It is contended that the claim petition was filed without noticing the fact that two claimants were dead long prior to the filing of the petition and that itself is sufficient to invalidate Exhibit P-5 award. 4. Exhibit P-3 is the death certificate of P. Karunakaran (Applicant No. 6 in Exhibit P-5). Exhibit P-3 shows that Karunakaran died on April 11, 1990. The claim petition was only in 1991. As the second applicant's death was subsequent to the filing of the claim petition as evidenced by Exhibit P-4, there cannot be any challenge against Exhibit P-5 award. But the position is different so far as the 6th applicant is concerned. Even then the contention of the petitioner that the 6th applicant being dead long prior to the filing of the claim petition, the entire award becomes a nullity cannot be accepted. At best, it can only be held that the 6th applicant's legal heirs alone will be entitled to the amount due to him in properly instituted proceedings. 5. Contention of the petitioner that the 25th respondent is not entitled to represent respondents Nos. 1 to 24 and respondents Nos. 26 to 37 is also not tenable. Such a contention was not taken before the first respondent. 6. 5. Contention of the petitioner that the 25th respondent is not entitled to represent respondents Nos. 1 to 24 and respondents Nos. 26 to 37 is also not tenable. Such a contention was not taken before the first respondent. 6. Another contention of the petitioner is that the petition filed u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable as the benefit claimed by the workers which is sought to be computed is disputed and so the first respondent has no power to adjudicate the claim u/s 33-C(2). He relied on D.P.O. Southern Railway v. Kamalam 1988) 2 KLT 835; and urged that the determination of the question as to whether the workman is entitled to the benefit is beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2). He contended that the determination of the question as to whether the employee is entitled to the right claimed by him as also whether the employer is liable to pay the amount claimed by the employee cannot be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court while dealing with a petition u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. 7. The above decision has no application to the case in hand as the entitlement of the workmen to the notice pay and closure compensation is not a matter in dispute. It is pointed out that when the factory was closed there was a settlement with regard to the gratuity amount and so long as there is no case for the petitioner that the workmen who have filed the claim petition are not his employees and as the notice sent by the workmen was not given any reply by the petitioner, it is a case where the first respondent can very well decide the claim preferred by the workmen. It is the function of the first respondent while dealing with the petition u/s 33-C(2) of the Act to determine the amount due to the workmen from the employer. In a case where the workmen are entitled to benefits which are capable of being computed in terms of money that has to be done. As the applicants were the workers of the petitioner and as they; were not admittedly paid notice pay and closure compensation, the contention that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the award u/s 33-C(2) is not tenable. 8. As the applicants were the workers of the petitioner and as they; were not admittedly paid notice pay and closure compensation, the contention that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the award u/s 33-C(2) is not tenable. 8. P.W.-1, secretary of the union, stated that the factory was closed by the petitioner on January 13, 1987, without giving closure notice to the employees and that no amount was paid to them towards compensation. It is stated by him that he had sent Exhibit P-l notice on May 27, 1987, that it was received by the petitioner as per Exhibit P-2 acknowledgment, that the amount due to each of the applicants towards notice pay and closure compensation was shown in the calculation statement and that it remained without any response from the petitioner. The managing partner of the petitioner examined as R.W.-1 stated that the factory has not been functioning from January, 1987, and it was closed due to financial difficulties. 9. Admittedly, the establishment was closed in January, 1987. The petitioner has no case that the workers, were paid notice pay and closure compensation. The petitioner also has no case that the applicants were not its employees. As the petitioner has not denied the status of the applicants as workmen under the establishment its claim that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to consider the dispute u/s 33-C(2) is devoid of merit The entitlement of the applicants to the claim made by them cannot be disputed by the petitioner as admittedly gratuity amount due to them was deposited. As the entitlement of the applicants cannot be disputed the petitioner cannot successfully contend that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction in passing the award. 10. There is no merit in the original petition and hence the same is dismissed.