ORDER : S. Sujatha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the orders on I.A. No. 7 passed in Application No. 29/2009 by II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore. 2. Facts in brief are: The respondent filed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act', for brevity) seeking for recovery of various arrears from the petitioner/management. In the said proceedings, an application I.A. No. 7 was filed by the respondent to implead one Smt. Rani Satish as respondent No. 2 in the said case. This application was contested by the petitioner, filing detailed statement of objections. Labour Court after hearing both the parties, allowed the application against which this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the scope of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act is limited. It is only whether any workmen entitled to receive from the employer any money or benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then such question may be adjudicated under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. In the guise of seeking impleadment of Smt. Rani Satish as Respondent No. 2 in the proceedings, the respondent/workmen is trying to adjudicate the proprietorship of two different legal entities, which is not permissible under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. It is contended that Smt. Rani Satish is in noway concerned with M/S. Bharat Die Cast and if the workmen is claiming his benefits as a workman of M/S. Pradhan Udyog, it is not permissible for respondent No. 1 to seek for impleadment of Smt. Rani Satish as Respondent No. 2 to the proceedings instead of filing a separate application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act against M/S. Pradhan Udyog. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation ltd. v. The Workmen & Anr., 1974 (4) SCC 696 . 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation ltd. v. The Workmen & Anr., 1974 (4) SCC 696 . 4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifies the order passed by the Labour Court and would contend that in the proceedings before the Labour Court, under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act, the respondent therein Sri R N Satish had taken a contention that he has no connection with M/S. Pradhan Udyog though the workman had worked in both the establishments managed, controlled and administered by Sri. Satish from the year 1983 to 2007. It is pointed out by Sri Satish that M/s. Pradhan Udyog does not belong to him and it was run by Mrs. Rani Satish on the basis of the General Power of Attorney executed by their son. It is the case of respondent that from the year 1983 to 2001, he was working with Mr. Satish who was the proprietor of M/S. Bharat Die Cast and from 2001 to 2007, he continued to work with Mr. Satish in the establishment by name M/S. Pradhan Udyog since Mr. Satish has disowned his responsibility of paying the benefits from 2001 to 2007 on the pretext that M/S. Pradhan Udyog which was in existence from 2001 to 2007 was not under his control and was managed and administered by his wife on the basis of the General Power of Attorney. Thus, he was compelled to file an application seeking impleadment of Mrs. Rani Satish as Respondent No. 2 to the proceedings. 5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, there is no cavil that the scope of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act is limited i.e., the proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) is generally in the nature of execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court computes the amount of any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money due to workman. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the workman continuously worked in the respondent establishment from 1983 to 2001 and thereafter with M/S. Pradhan Udyog from the year 2001 to 2007, both these establishments are two different independent legal entities. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the workman continuously worked in the respondent establishment from 1983 to 2001 and thereafter with M/S. Pradhan Udyog from the year 2001 to 2007, both these establishments are two different independent legal entities. It is the claim of respondent that he is entitled to certain benefits which are liable to be computed in terms of money for the period 1983 to 2007, both the establishments generally managed, administered by Mr. Satish. Under these circumstances, to claim the benefits in terms of money under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act for the period 2001 to 2007 from M/S. Pradhan Udyog owned by the son of the Respondent No. 2, the proper and appropriate remedy would have been to file the necessary application under Section 33(C)(2) of Act against M/S. Pradhan Udyog that would not preclude the workman to file an impleadment application. However, it is not disputed that the 1st Respondent had worked under Mr. Satish who was managing M/S Pradhan Udyog as well as M/s. Bharat Die Cast. 6. In order to compute the benefit in terms of money, it is not necessary for the Labour Court to examine or to investigate who are the proprietors of M/S Pradhan Udyog or M/S. Bharat Die Cast. What contemplates under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act is the workman has to prove that he is entitled for the compensation amount and the burden also lies on him to prove his case. In view of the stand taken by Mr. Satish that he has no responsibility for any compensation amount that is liable to be paid from M/S. Pradhan Udyog, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings of filing different applications for different periods against different respondents, filing of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151CPC to implead the proposed respondent as Respondent No. 2 and the Labour Court allowing the said application cannot be found fault with. In the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the case of investigation which was required to be made. There were several questions raised by the parties with reference to a settlement deed between the company and the workers which were in the nature of an industrial dispute which was outside the scope of Section 33(C)(2). There were several questions raised by the parties with reference to a settlement deed between the company and the workers which were in the nature of an industrial dispute which was outside the scope of Section 33(C)(2). It was only on a detailed investigation it was possible to determine whether the workman had any right to a benefit, and if so, the corporation was liable to satisfy the same. In that context, the Apex Court has held that problems raised in the said case were proper for determination in an industrial dispute Under Section 10 of the Act and cannot be regarded as merely to the computation under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Hence, the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Respondent No. 2, the General Power of Attorney holder of M/S Pradhan Udyog who is managing and administering the establishment is the necessary and appropriate party who would be bound by the result of the claim to be settled. Given the circumstances, impleadment of proposed respondent No. 2 is justifiable. 8. It is also significant to note that the aggrieved person-proposed respondent No. 2 is not before the Court challenging the impugned order. The Writ Petition is filed by M/s. Bharat Die Cast represented by its proprietor Sri R N Satish. On this ground also, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed.