Judgment :- This petition is filed to call for the records from II Respondent relating to order passed by him on 28. 2005 in Central Claim petition No.59/1996 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Chennai.104 and quashing the said order dated 28. 2005. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition was serving as a Deputy Shop Superintendent in the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai against whom disciplinary proceedings were issued for submitting false school certificate. A punishment of dismissal was imposed and modified as compulsory retirement in appeal. Such order was challenged before the tribunal in O.A.No.423 of 1989 and the petition was dismissed. No further appeal has been preferred and the order of compulsory retirement became final. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and filed a petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for computation and monetary benefits from the respondents. The Labour Court raised the following points for determination. 1) Whether the claim petition u/s. 33(C) (2) of I.D. Act is maintainable? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the claim of Rs.5, 19,855/- from the Respondent? 3. On the first issue, the respondent before the Labour Court contended that the petitioner was working in a supervisory capacity and therefore not a worker as provided under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The petition therefore is not maintainable. No industrial dispute has been raised and no award or settlement is passed. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in terms of Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Labour Court dismissed the petition against which the present writ petition has been filed. The factual position as above is not in dispute. 4. The counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in – .(i) (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases, Page 58 in State of U.P. and another Vs. Brijpal Singh and .(ii) (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases, Page 22 in D.Krishnan and another Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and another. 5. In D.Krishnan and another Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and another, it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and there should be an adjudication of the claim before such a claim is made. Para 12 which is relevant to the present case is as follows: “12. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and another, it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and there should be an adjudication of the claim before such a claim is made. Para 12 which is relevant to the present case is as follows: “12. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The fact that proceedings under Section 33 c(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings is in no doubt, and such proceedings presuppose some adjudication leading to the determination of a right, which has to be enforced. Concededly there has been no such adjudication in the present case. It will be seen that the reliance of the appellant workmen is exclusively on documentary evidence placed on record which consisted primarily of the punch time cards and the representations that had been filed from time to time before the respondents. It is also true that the claim raised by the appellants had been hotly disputed by the respondents. The question that arises in this situation is whether reliance only on the documentary evidence was sufficient to prove the case.” 6. Para 13 of (2005) 8 SCC, Page 58, State of U.P and another Vs. Brijpal Singh, it has been held as follows: “13. Thus, it is clear from the principle enunciated in the above decisions that the appropriate forum where question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding before a forum to whom a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made. Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein which is not based on an existing right but which may appropriately be made the subject-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. Therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under Section 33(2) of the ID Act in an undetermined claim and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate forum, the respondent workman cannot ask the Labour Court in an application under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act to disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to compute his wages." 7. Para 10 of (2005) 8 SCC, Page 58, State of U.P and another Vs. Brijpal Singh, while considering the scope of Section 33(C)(2), it has been clearly held as follows: "10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed under Section 33 C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint under Section 33 A or on a reference under Section 10 that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This Court in the case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ktd. V. Suresh Chands held that a proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from the 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. Proceeding further, this Court held that 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. This Court further held as follows: SCCp. 150, Para 4) It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 33 C(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-matter of an industrial dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the Act.” 8. In the present case, there is no adjudication of claim of the petitioner and there is no quantification by the competent court so as to file a petition under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in a supervisory capacity. As against the order of punishment, he has approached the Administrative tribunal and not the Labour court challenging the order of dismissal. The petitioner has clearly accepted that he is not a workman as defined under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 33 (C) (2) of I.D. Act 1947. 9. The petitioner has clearly accepted that he is not a workman as defined under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 33 (C) (2) of I.D. Act 1947. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that some amounts are due to the petitioner in the course of his employment and there are some error in the calculation. It is open to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the respondent authority pointing out the error in calculation. If any representation is made, it is always open to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the Petitioners plea. Accordingly, finding no merits, the petition is dismissed. No costs.