JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - An application made u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming unpaid wages from April 11, 1984 till the date of filing of the application on November 7, 1989 having been thrown out by the Labour Court, the petitioner has approached this Court for reversal of the order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as an NMR Mate under the opp. party No.2, the Executive Engineer, Indravati Dam Division, Upper Indravati Project, since 1979. That Division was bodily transferred to the control of the Executive Engineer, Indravati Development Division No. II under the same project with effect from June 20, 1986. The Executive Engineer of the transferee Division is the opp. party No. 3 to this case. The petitioner filed the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act (Annexure-1) before the Labour Court enclosing a statement showing the dates of his engagement before the opp. party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively and computed his claim at Rs. 29,545.05. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the opp. party Nos. 2 and 3. The opp. party No. 2 pleaded that the petitioner was not engaged after April 11, 1984 and the opp. party No. 3 maintained that soon after the merger of the establishment under the opp. party No. 2 in his establishment, there has been no appointment of the petitioner in the Division. The Labour Court held that the proceeding u/s 33-C(2) of the Act is in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Court is to calculate the amount of money due to a workman from his employer or his entitlement to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. Reliance was placed by it on a decision of the Supreme Court of which reference has not been correctly mentioned, that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application u/s 33-C(2) in respect of a matter which is not based on any existing right and which can be appropriately the subject matter of an industrial dispute only requiring a reference u/s 10 of the Act. Being of that view, the Labour Court held that as the employment of the petitioner after April 11, 1984 had been denied by the opp. party Nos. Being of that view, the Labour Court held that as the employment of the petitioner after April 11, 1984 had been denied by the opp. party Nos. 2 and 3, he had no existing right in respect of which money due to him has to be computed. He accordingly rejected the application. 3. Mr. Rath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged in assailing the order that the application could not have been held to be not maintainable as it was within the competence of the Labour Court to decide, as an incidental question to the application for the claim, as to whether the petitioner was continuing in employment, particularly in view of the facts that the opposite parties had admitted the petitioner to be a workman since 1979 and that the managements (opp. party Nos. 2 and 3) had not placed any records to show the petitioner not to have continued in employment. Both such submissions have been contested by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 4. No doubt in deciding an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act the Labour Court is competent to decide only in respect of existing rights and claims which are capable of being computed in terms of money and that it functions as an executing Court to get the money from the employer to the workman, but it is by now far too well- settled in law that in exercising such functions the Labour Court has also the right to decide ancillary or incidental questions relating to existence of right and that for the purpose, it might hold an enquiry. The question was considered in The Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., by a Constitution Bench wherein it was observed (p.95): ".. ..The claim u/s 33-C(2) clearly postulated that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the 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)" Explaining the Court observed (p.95): ".....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 workman that the next question of making the necessary computation can arise..." This decision was followed with approval in 1972 I LLJ 235 (R.B. Bansilal Arbichand Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. y. The Labour Court) which was in effect a Five Judges Bench decision though the judgment was delivered only by four Hon'ble Judges as the other Hon'ble Judge, Justice S.C. Roy had expired by the time the judgment was delivered but he had concurred to the judgment In view of such pronouncements, the Labour Court was not correct to hold the case as not maintainable and rather it was its duty to have investigated the claim of the petitioner as to whether he was continuing as a workman during the relevant periods under the opp. party Nos. 2 and 3. That having not been done, we have to hold that the Labour Court has failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly in accordance with law. 5. The next question urged by Mr. Rath has also great substance. Admittedly the petitioner's employment under the opp. party No. 2 was in 1979. He came with the specific case that his employment was continuing throughout and attached the schedule of his dates of engagement to the application. Since the claim of his continuance in the engagement was denied and it was for the Labour Court to have investigated into the matter, it should have called upon the opposite parties to produce necessary papers to show that in fact that petitioner was not continuing in employment. Though the cases of the parties were to be confined to their pleadings, yet it is well-known that in proceedings before the Labour Court strict rules of pleading and evidence do not apply and that the Labour Court's discretion to arrive at the correct position of facts is not fettered by technical rules of evidence. Though the cases of the parties were to be confined to their pleadings, yet it is well-known that in proceedings before the Labour Court strict rules of pleading and evidence do not apply and that the Labour Court's discretion to arrive at the correct position of facts is not fettered by technical rules of evidence. It has to be remembered that the legislation in the Industrial Disputes Act was intended as a beneficial one to the workmen and that Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals have been set up under the Act as special forums to adjudicate upon the disputes peculiar to the workmen so as to assure them not only a speedy and efficacious remedy but also a forum which would, if necessary, investigate into the disputed claims and determine the rights according to law as available to the workman. The Orissa Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') vest power in the Labour Court in Rule 25, in addition to the powers conferred by the Act, the powers of a Civil Court of discovery and inspection, granting adjournment, and reception of evidence on affidavit while trying a suit. Rule 24 inter alia vests powers in the Labour Court to enter any building, factory, workshop or other place or premises whatsoever and inspect the same or any work, machinery, appliance or article therein or interrogate any person therein in respect of anything situated therein or any matter relevant to the subject-matter of the conciliation, investigation, enquiry or adjudication, and similar powers may also be exercised by any person authorised by the Labour Court after he has given reasonable notice. Vesting of such powers would show that one of the purposes of the Labour Court is to investigate or enquire into the claim made and make the adjudication which would include in itself doing all such things as are ancillary or incidental to the main question arising before it. As the petitioner was admittedly a workman, continuance in employment would be the normal rule and it would be for the employer to show discontinuance. Otherwise the petitioner would be called upon to discharge a negative onus. All the records would be available only with the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to show whether the petitioner was being continued in employment or not. Otherwise the petitioner would be called upon to discharge a negative onus. All the records would be available only with the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to show whether the petitioner was being continued in employment or not. As such, for a fair adjudication of the claim, the Labour Court was to have called upon the opp. party Nos. 2 and 3 to produce the records and find out whether the claim made by the petitioner was correct or was spurious. In AIR 1953 SC 1710 (Workmen of Joint Steamer Companies v. Joint Steamer Companies and Anr.) their Lordships observed: "....We think it proper however to emphasise the importance of both employers and workmen making available to industrial adjudication all relevant papers, including account books which are likely to assist a proper decision of the questions at issue." In The Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. R.S. Bhatia (Dead) through Lrs., where the dispute was whether the respondent before Court was a workman or not, with the management claiming that the respondent was employed in a supervisory capacity, it was observed that there was practically no evidence on behalf of the appellant management in support of its case that the respondent was not a workman and that no paper was produced by it to show any entrustment of managerial or administrative duty to the respondent while he was working as a mere Accountant Though the case arose in a different context where the appellant had pleaded an admitted workman to be in reality engaged in a supervisory capacity and hence the Court found fault of their having not established such fact, yet the principle is deducible that where the management comes with the plea that the person who is admitted to be a workman is claimed to be no more continuing as such, it would be for them to establish since when and by what process the workman has not been engaged and whether there are materials to show that his engagement has ceased. It was also for the Labour Court to have called upon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to produce the records to satisfy itself of such fact." 6. In that view of the matter, we find the order of the Labour Court to be not sustainable in law and hence it is quashed. I.D. Misc. It was also for the Labour Court to have called upon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to produce the records to satisfy itself of such fact." 6. In that view of the matter, we find the order of the Labour Court to be not sustainable in law and hence it is quashed. I.D. Misc. Case No. 49/89 is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the observations made. The matter being already an old one it be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court and intimation of such disposal be sent to the Court. 7. The writ petition is allowed. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-. R.K. Patra, J. 8. I agree Final Result : Allowed