JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : The legality of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.16 of 2002 filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is challenged before this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed by the opposite party No.3 on 10.12.1970 as the Caretaker for Holiday Home, Puri at a consolidated wage of Rs.110/- per month and continued as such till 30th September, 1972. The said Holiday Home was under the control of Air India. In the year, 1972 after Air India was separated from Indian Airlines, the Holiday Home came under the exclusive control and supervision of Indian Airlines. Even though the management changed, the husband of the petitioner continued as Caretaker under the new management vide letter dated 4.8.1973 till 31.10.1997. By letter dated 27.10.1977, the services of the petitioner were extended for a further period of three years with a pay of Rs.250/- per month. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner was allowed to continue from time to time in the same post till 1989 and at that point of time, he was receiving wages of Rs.800/- per month. After 1989, the opposite party No.3 did not renew the services of the husband of the petitioner but it is the case of the petitioner that her husband continued to dis¬charge his duties as Caretaker and, on 13.8.1990 he submitted a representation for enhancement of his wages. It is also the case of the petitioner that the opposite party No.3 terminated the services of the husband of the petitioner by letter dated 30th April, 1991 with effect from 1.5.1991. The petitioner thereafter raised an Industrial Dispute and on failure of conciliation, the following reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. “whether the action of the management of Indian Airlines is justified in disengaging Shri Sarangdhar Sasmal, Caretaker, Holiday Home, Puri ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?” 3. The case of the opposite party No.3 before the Indus¬trial Tribunal was that the engagement of the husband of the petitioner as Caretaker had been extended from time to time and on expiry of the term, the termination took place automatically. If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?” 3. The case of the opposite party No.3 before the Indus¬trial Tribunal was that the engagement of the husband of the petitioner as Caretaker had been extended from time to time and on expiry of the term, the termination took place automatically. It is also the case of the opposite party No.3 that the Holiday Home was taken over by it under lease agreement with the owner of the premises and lease was renewed on 1.1.1990 on a condition that the landlord S.K. Sen shall take over the care taking job. However, while not engaging the husband of the petitioner any further as Caretaker, the opposite party No.3 in view of the long association with the husband of the petitioner paid Rs.10,800/- inclusive of one month consideration. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues and answered the reference in favour of the husband of the petitioner vide award dated 15.9.1997. In the operative portion of the award, the Tribunal held that disen¬gagement of the husband of the petitioner by the opposite party No.3 is illegal and not justified and the Tribunal further held that the petitioner is deemed to be in service till 30th March, 1996 with all his back wages with a further direction to pay the back wages within a period of two months. 5. The said award neither challenged by the husband of the petitioner nor by the opposite party No.3. It is stated at the bar that the direction contained in the award was complied with by the opposite party No.3 and the husband of the petitioner was paid back wages calculating the wages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. 6. Not being satisfied with quantum of money paid towards back wages, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court claiming therein that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.6,47,900/-. The said application was resisted by the opposite party No.3 on the ground that the Labour Court cannot go beyond the award and the back wages calcu¬lated at the rate of Rs.800/- per month is payable to the peti¬tioner. The Labour Court upon hearing the parties held that it functions as executing Court and can not go beyond the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 7. The Labour Court upon hearing the parties held that it functions as executing Court and can not go beyond the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the finding of the Industrial Tribunal and sub¬mitted that while adjudicating the reference, the Tribunal had specifically held that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits till the age of 58 years and he was entitled to back wages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. Referring to the appli¬cation filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner was entitled to pay scale with D.A., A.D.A. and other allowances and not Rs.800/- which he was drawing at the time of disengagement. The differen¬tial pay from 1970 to the date of retirement was calculated at Rs.4,46,000/-, the House Rent Allowance was calculated at Rs.1,18,900/- and bonus was calculated at Rs.83,000/-, thus making it total of Rs.6,47,000/-. According to the learned coun¬sel, if the petitioner had continued in services till retirement, he would have been entitled to the scale admissible as his coun¬ter parts working in the regular establishment and, therefore, he is entitled to the differential pay from 1970 to 1996. Apart from above, he would have been entitled to house rent allowance and bonus as indicated in the petition. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal having found that the petition¬er is entitled to all the benefits, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the claim made by the petitioner in the application filed under Section 33-C(2) is not covered by the said findings. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3 submitted that in the operative portion of the award, the Industrial Tribunal had specifically directed for payment of back wages till the date of retirement at the rate of Rs.800/- per month which has been calculated and paid to the petitioner. The reference made to the Industrial Tribunal did not include the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to same scale of pay as paid to his counter parts in the regular establishment and as to whether he is also entitled to house rent allowance, bonus etc. The aforesaid claims having not been re¬ferred for adjudication, it was beyond the scope of Section 33-C(2) to decide such questions. The aforesaid claims having not been re¬ferred for adjudication, it was beyond the scope of Section 33-C(2) to decide such questions. The learned counsel further sub¬mitted that the Labour Court acts as an executing Court while deciding the application under Section 33-C(2) and it cannot go beyond what has been directed in an award. 9. On perusal of the findings arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal, there cannot be any doubt in mind that though the Tribunal observed that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits till the date of his retirement, at the same time it is directed for payment of back wages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the scale of pay admissible to his counter parts working in the regular establishment or not and as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to house rent allowance and bonus had neither been referred for adjudication nor have they been decided by the Tribunal. In the operative portion of the award, the Tribunal had specifically directed for payment of back wages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month till the retirement. 10. Coming to the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen and another reported in 1974 SC 1604. The Apex Court in the said decision held that a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) is a pro¬ceeding, 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 money, the labour Court proceeds to compute the benefit in terms of money. Since the proceeding under Section 33-C(2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding, it should follow that an investigation of the nature of determinations of right of the workman and the corresponding liability of the employer is normally outside its scope. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a deci¬sion of the Apex Court in the Goverdhan Prasad and others v. The Management M/s. Indian Oxizen Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 SC 27 . The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a deci¬sion of the Apex Court in the Goverdhan Prasad and others v. The Management M/s. Indian Oxizen Ltd. reported in AIR 1984 SC 27 . In the said decision, in an application under Section 33-C(2), the grievance was that dearness allowance paid to the workman is not in accordance with the award. In the said case, an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing that the Dearness Allowance payable to all categories of workman employed in Facto¬ry including general staff (employed in Delhi Branch) should be linked with consumer prices index for industrial workers in Delhi prepared by labour bureau. 11. The question raised was one of the interpretation of award to determine its coverage when computing monetary benefit admissible to workman. There was no dispute that for all adminis¬trative and managerial control, workman stationed at Ghaziabad were a part and parcel of the staff employed in Delhi Branch. The Court held that since Gaziabad was hardly at a distance of twenty kilometers from Delhi and price structure prevalent in Delhi and Gaziabad would not be materially different the dearness allowance admissible to those workman, who were under the administrative and managerial control of the Delhi Branch would be included in the expression. The aforesaid decision is clearly distinguisha¬ble. The question of payment of dearness allowance was referred to be adjudicated by the Tribunal and the only question raised was whether the workman under direct control of Delhi Branch stationed at Gaziabad would be entitled to the same benefit or not. In the present case, undisputedly the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal was with regard to disengagement of the petitioner only. While answering the reference, the Tribunal directed for payment of back wages at the rate of Rs.800/- per month till the date of retirement and rest claims made in the application under Section 33-C(2) were neither referred nor adjudicated. I, am therefore of the view that the Labour Court was justified in holding that while deciding the application under Section 33-C(2) it has no scope to go beyond the award passed by the Tribunal in the said reference. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ appli¬cation and the same is dismissed. Application dismissed.