JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The order dated 30.9.1996 passed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is under challenge. 2. Case of the petitioner-workman is that he was working in the capacity of Pump Driver and was also doing electric repairing since 1985 and to that effect certificates in his favour has been issued that he was working as Pump Operator which is coming under the skilled category but was getting Rs.25/- per day towards wages which is applicable to unskilled category, hence an application has been filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for issuance of direction to pay him wages as per the wages fixed to the skilled category of workers. While on the other hand, case of the opposite party-management is that the petitioner has never been assigned any work which can be said to be work of skilled worker rather the work which was assigned is in the research station including operation of water pump mainly to make the pump witch on and off and watching the same and as such cannot be come under the category of skilled worker. 3. The Labour Court while accepting Misc. Case No. 2 of 1996 filed by the workman has passed the order which is impugned in this writ petition by holding that the nature of work which was being performed was not coming under the category of skilled worker rather it was unskilled and as such what has been paid to him is genuine. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed this writ petition on the ground that the Labour Court has not appreciated the entire aspect of the matter in its right prospective. Labour Court has also not appreciated the fact that he was working as a Pump Operator and as such it will come under purview of the skilled worker. 5. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed this writ petition on the ground that the Labour Court has not appreciated the entire aspect of the matter in its right prospective. Labour Court has also not appreciated the fact that he was working as a Pump Operator and as such it will come under purview of the skilled worker. 5. Before examining the issue which has been raised by the petitioner, it would be important to refer the provision of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which contains the provision making a worker 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 and the Labour Court while disposing of the same by recording reason in writing. From bare perusal of the provision as contained in Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, the entitlement of the workman is to be decided by the Labour Court, if workman is not entitled, no direction can be issued, meaning thereby the provision of Section 33-C(2) is in nature of execution proceeding. 6. From bare perusal of the provision as contained in Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, the entitlement of the workman is to be decided by the Labour Court, if workman is not entitled, no direction can be issued, meaning thereby the provision of Section 33-C(2) is in nature of execution proceeding. 6. The question which has been raised by the workman that he be considered in the category of skilled worker but the materials which has been produced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has found that the nature of work which was being performed by the workman, was not of skilled category rather it is unskilled category, for the reason that the workman was engaged for switching OFF and ON of the Pump from the day he was performing duty and the management has appointed him as Pump Operator, hence by nature of work it cannot be said that he is coming under the category of skilled worker, thus entitlement of the workman has been decided by the Labour Court and the moment entitlement has been decided, no relief can be granted to the workman under the provisions of section 33-C(2) of the Act and the order has been passed by the Labour Court basing upon the evidence and the documents produced before it and as such the Labour Court has given cogent finding basing upon relevant evidence produced before it in course of appreciation of fact. 7. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to reverse the fact finding otherwise it will be said that the High Court has become court of Appeal. Thus, since there is specific finding regarding denial of entitlement of the workman to get wages of skilled worker, as such we decline to interfere with the fact finding given in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.