JUDGMENT 1. - The common question for adjudication in these matters is the maintainability of the claim of appellants in proceedings under section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "1947 Act"). 2. Contextual facts depict that as many as 71 workmen of different categories i.e. piece rate, un-skilled and semi-skilled (out of which only 40 are the appellants in these appeals) moved application under Section 33(c)(2) 1947 Act with the averments that the respondent factory (for short "the employer') had not implemented the order dated April 25, 1973 (Annexure-1) and had not granted the pay scales and dearness allowance to the workmen, therefore, the workmen were entitled to receive difference of pay mentioned therein. The employer contested the claim mainly on the ground that the workmen time and again had demanded similar wage structure as based on UP formula which had not been agreed to and had specifically been rejected by the employer as per various Board resolutions and settlements made thereafter. The demand of rejecting wages on UP formula had not been challenged by way of any industrial dispute. It was the contention of the employer that in the garb of the order dated April 25, 1973 (Annexure-1), the workmen were actually demanding the wage structure based on UP formula whereas they were entitled to only the wages structure of Second Sugar Wage Board decision/recommendations. 3. Learned Single Judge further incorporated the ground raised by the employer in assailing the order of the Labour Court thus: "that even though the recommendations of the Sugar Wage Board is not applicable to the petitioners, but at the most they were entitled to be given the pay scales as mentioned In the Second Sugar Board as per Annexure-1 which had already been granted to them." 4. Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the employer canvass that the .Labour Court jurisdiction under Section 33(c)(2) of 1947 Act is limited and it cannot adjudicate the dispute of entitlement or basis of claim of -workmen. It can only interpret the award of settlement on which the claim is based. Its jurisdiction is like that of executing court. Reliance is placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another - (1995) SCC 235 . 5. It can only interpret the award of settlement on which the claim is based. Its jurisdiction is like that of executing court. Reliance is placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another - (1995) SCC 235 . 5. Having pondered over the submissions and on scanning the matter on record, we find that the learned Single Judge although referred the contention of the employer that the workmen were entitled to only the wage structure of Second Sugar Wage Board decision/recommendations in the garb of the order dated April 25, 1973 (Annexure-1), did not consider this submission in the impugned judgment. 6. We also notice that document Annexure-4 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3708/1997 (Munna & Ors. v. Labour Court, Bharatpur & Ors.) wherein all un-skilled, piece rated workers were fixed in the lowest rate of Second Sugar Wage Board award was also not considered. 7. Since document Annexure-1 was not disputed by the employer, the provisions contained in Section 33-C(2) of 1947 Act were applicable and entitlement of the workmen to the extent of said document could be adjudicated upon. 8. We, therefore, allow the instant appeals and set aside the impugned order dated April 24, 2000 of the learned single Judge. We remit the case to the learned Single Judge with the request to decide the writ petitions afresh in view of the afore-mentioned observation made by us. The parties are directed to appear before the learned single Judge for seeking further instructions. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all relevant legal issues before the learned Single Judge.Appeal allowed - Case remanded as above. *******