JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Heard. Order dated 30.05.2012 passed by Labour Court is being assailed vide this petition; whereby, an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act') for grant of Rs. 61,800/- alongwith interest @ 18% towards wages since 2000 has been rejected. 2. Appointed as Sales Promotion Officer on 06.03.2000 with respondent No. 1-Company and posted at Bhopal, petitioner was transferred to Bangalore by order dated 01.04.2003. By the said order, the petitioner was required to report at Bangalore by 10.04.2003. Instead of reporting at Bangalore, the petitioner raised a dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner wherein the conciliation officer passed orders on 21.04.2003 and 24.07.2003 in pending conciliation proceedings and stayed the operation of transfer order dated 01.04.2003 in purported exercise of powers conferred under section 33A of the 1947 Act. Armed with this order, the petitioner did not report joining at Bangalore. It is this act of the petitioner which led to non-grant of salary to the petitioner for the period from 01.06.2003 to 31.01.2004. This act of respondents led the petitioner to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act before the Labour Court seeking direction for disbursement of salary to the tune of Rs. 61,800/-. 3. After dwelling upon the issue and placing reliance on the decisions in - (i) Automobile Products of India v. Rakmaji Bais & others, AIR 1955 SC 258 , (ii) VIP Industries Limited v. VIP Industries Shramik Sangh decided by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench on 03.04.2012 vide LPA No. 355/2011 (iii) Omkar Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1991 All. 239 (iv) Management, Dainik Naveen Duniya v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1991 MPLJ 114 wherein it has been held that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer to exercise the power under Section 33A of the 1947 Act, - the Labour Court found that there being no provision for adjudication; rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) by impugned order. 4. 4. After hearing the petitioner at length and taking into consideration the claim put forth by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court was well within its jurisdiction in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act claiming wages for the period from 01.06.2003 to 31.01.2004. 5. Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act stipulates: (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; within a period not exceeding three months. Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit. 6. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Rajak:, (1995) 1 SCC 235 ; it has been observed in paragraph 12:-- 12. ...The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33C(2) like that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. 7. The impugned order when tested on the anvil of the provisions of Section 33C(2) of 1947 Act and the proposition of law laid down in Ganesh Rajak (supra) cannot be faulted with. 8. In view whereof no interference is caused. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.