Judgment D. Murugesan, J. The writ appeal questions the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.14518 of 1995 dated 18.07.2003 on the following substance:- The respondents numbering 1113 were employed either as conductors or drivers in the appellant Transport Corporation. On the ground that they have put in more than 240 days of services and their services were regularised and they have been made permanent, they approached the Labour Court, Vellore under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of monetary benefit to which they are entitled to. 2. By Award dated 212. 1994, the Labour Court allowed the claim petitions which was questioned by the Transport Corporation in the writ petition. The learned single Judge concurring with the award of the Labour Court had dismissed the writ petition giving rise to the present writ appeal. 3. The two issues raised in the writ appeal are (1) Whether the respondents are regular employees and their services are regularized solely on the ground that they have completed 240 days of services? and (2) Whether they are entitled to maintain a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of monetary value? 4. Before we delve upon the above issues, it would be useful to refer the law settled by the Apex Court, insofar as the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. It has been consistently held that unless the award is perverse and the findings are not supported by any materials whatsoever and the award is outside the scope of the reference, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the award of the Labour Court and even the findings which were rendered on the basis of factual aspects. 5. Insofar as the finding of the Labour Court which was confirmed by the learned single Judge as to whether the respondents are treated to be regular employees, whose services are regularized and are permanent, in our opinion, such finding requires no interference. 5. Insofar as the finding of the Labour Court which was confirmed by the learned single Judge as to whether the respondents are treated to be regular employees, whose services are regularized and are permanent, in our opinion, such finding requires no interference. The learned Judge had noted the finding of the Labour Court and had held that the respondent employees though were working as a daily rated workers as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment orders, they had successfully completed 240 days and they have been absorbed permanently as regular employees on regular time-scale of pay applicable to the respective cadre and in any case, the services are perennial and permanent in nature and therefore, the finding with regard to permanent status cannot be interfered with. We are, therefore, entirely in agreement with the said finding as the scope of interference of the finding in the award rendered on factual aspect is very limited. Hence, we are refrained from interfering with the said finding. 6. This would take us to the next issue viz., as to whether by virtue of mere fact that the respondents were treated as regular employees, they have been entitled to approach the Labour Court by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when there is no pre-existing right. 7. A perusal of the award shows that though all the respondents were employed as a daily rated workers for one year as trainees, they were made permanent. The said finding was based on the various exhibits and settlements produced before the Labour Court. The said finding has been referred to by the learned Judge, particularly, in para 2 of the impugned order, wherein the learned Judge has referred to that the respondents were working as a daily rated workers as per the appointment orders issued to them and on successful completion of 240 days they have been on regular time-scale of pay applicable to the respective cadre. 8. In order to sustain the petition under Section 33C(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, there must be a pre-adjudication as to the claim and correspondingly to pre-existing rights. The Labour Court is devoid of power and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claim or to give directions on that basis. [See, 1995 (1) L.L.N. 402 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another.] 9. The Labour Court is devoid of power and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon fresh claim or to give directions on that basis. [See, 1995 (1) L.L.N. 402 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another.] 9. Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is in the nature of execution proceedings to recover dues to the workmen. The claim must be capable of being computed and there should not be any bonafide dispute as to such claim. The proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, pre-supposes some adjudication leading to a determination of right, which could be enforced. [See D. Krishnan and another v. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill and another, 2008 (7) SCC 22 ; and Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner, (2007) 5 SCC 281 ]. 11. In view of the above law settled and the given facts and circumstances which were discussed in the earlier portion of the order viz., the services of the workmen in question were regularized and there is no dispute as to their entitlement to the salary on the basis of such regularization, the Labour Court would be justified in computing the monetary claim to each of the workmen. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the award of the Labour Court and the writ 12. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, interim stay granted by this Court on 210. 2005 stands vacated and W.A.M.P.No.572 of 2005 stands closed. No costs.