Judgment Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st July 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 11573 of 2008, the respondent M/s Pradip Lamp Works, an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The respondent no. 3, the workman approached the Labour Court, Patna under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1993. The workman sought recovery of the salary for the period from 1991 to 1993 and the amount of bonus for the period from 1985 to 1992. 3. The claim was contested by the appellant. According to the appellant the workman had reached the age of superannuation in 1992 and that he was not entitled to recovery of salary or the bonus claimed by him. In view of the disputed facts, the Labour Court, under its order dated 12th April 2007, dismissed the said application. 4. The said order dated 12th April 2007 was challenged by the workman in above CWJC No. 11573 of 2008. The learned single Judge was pleased to hold that the bonus is a component of the salary and that in normal course of service, the workman would have reached the age of superannuation in April 1994. In view of the said finding, the learned single Judge has remanded the matter to the Labour Court to calculate the back wages on the basis of consolidated salary and the bonus till April 1994. 5. Feeling aggrieved the employer has preferred this Appeal. 6. The Appeal needs to be allowed on a short issue that the application under Section 33-C(2) for recovery of the contentious amount would not lie. According to the employer, in absence of any specific order or a settlement with the workmen, general standing order would prevail. According to the general standing order, the age of superannuation of a workman is 58 years; accordingly the workman reached the age of superannuation in March 1992. 7. It is apparent that the application made under Section 33-C(2) of the Act raised contentious issue as to the age of superannuation. Such an issue could not have been resolved in exercise of power conferred by Section 33-C(2) of the Act. 7. It is apparent that the application made under Section 33-C(2) of the Act raised contentious issue as to the age of superannuation. Such an issue could not have been resolved in exercise of power conferred by Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Unless there were an adjudication in respect of the age of superannuation and the ancillary monetary benefits, the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act would not lie. 8. In our view, the learned single Judge has erred in entertaining the contentious issues in an application made under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is now well settled that the provisions contained in Section 33-C(1) and 33-C(2) are in the nature of execution and are not in the nature of adjudication. 9. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this Appeal. The judgment and order dated 31st July 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 11573 of 2008 is set aside. CWJC No. 11573 of 2008 is dismissed. 10. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.