JUDGMENT S.N. PRASAD, J. - This writ petition is against the award passed in I.D. Misc. Case No. 86 of 1994 dated 2.1.1999 whereby and where under the order has been passed by the Labour Court in favour of the workman under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2.Case of the petitioner is that he is the General Secretary of Orissa Rashtra Bhasa Parishad which is an voluntary organization and the opposite party-workman was working as Pracharak for the Parishad has been engaged to work voluntarily under the organization and as such organization cannot be said to be an industry being a voluntary organization, hence the order passed under Section 33-C (2) is not sustainable. 3.In course of the argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after 1.5 1993, no work has been taken from the opposite party-workman, hence there is no question of disbursement of remuneration after 1.5.1993, in support of the workman. The Annexure-1, which is an Acquaittance Roll of the staff for the month of May, 1993 has been referred. 4.Before appreciating the finding given by the Labour Court in the order impugned, it would be relevant to refer the provision of 33 C (2), which is being reproduced below:- “33 C (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.” The provision of Section 33C (2) is execution proceeding and if a workman is entitled for the remuneration/salary/wages, the Labour Court will pass an order in this regard, if the same is to be computed in terms of money. 5.The specific case of the opposite party-workman is that he has been engaged on 1.1.1989 on monthly salary of Rs. 450/- and he has been paid upto 1.5.1993 and thereafter it has been stopped. 5.The specific case of the opposite party-workman is that he has been engaged on 1.1.1989 on monthly salary of Rs. 450/- and he has been paid upto 1.5.1993 and thereafter it has been stopped. 6.While on the other hand, case of the management is that after 1.5.1993 no work of Pracharak is being taken from the opposite party-workman as such he is not entitled to get remuneration, hence the application under Section 33C(2) is fit to be rejected. We have gone through the Acquaittance Roll basis upon which remuneration has been denied. 7.It is settled that the Acquaittacne Roll is the details of an employee with designation and the details of the amount which he is entitled to get along with a Column for showing receipt of the amount but the Acquaittance Roll as has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition does not contain any column to show the order of removal from service but the Acquaittance Roll where the name of the petitioner contains at Sl. No. 18 has contained a remark that “since the office has been closed w.e.f. 1.5.1993, however the petitioner has worked properly and he has been removed as Pracharak, hence he will not get any remuneration after 1.5.1993.” 8.Thus, there is no denial about the fact that the opposite party –workman has been engaged under the petitioner’s organization and he has also been paid remuneration up to 1.5.1993 but thereafter he has not been paid remuneration. The Labour Court has taken note of the fact that even after remuneration for the post of Pracharak, he was given some money for conducting various Hindi examinations and taking up Tutorial classes as well and since no order of retrenchment has been issued having been not engaged to the opposite party workman up to 1.1.1999. 9.Even accepting the contention of the petitioner that opposite party-workman has removed as Pracharak from 1.5.1993 but no such communication has been made since nothing has been produced ever before the Labour Court or before this Court rather the Acquaittance Roll which has been annexed as Annexure-1 containing therein that the opposite party-workman has been removed from service w.e.f. 1.5.1993 which shows that no order of removal from service of Pracharak having been issued against the opposite party-workman has ever been communicated to him. Taking into consideration, this aspect of the matter, the Labour Court has found that the opposite party-workman is entitled to get remuneration and accordingly passed order under Section 33C (2). 10.The Labour Court has also considered the fact regarding the contention of the petitioner that the establishment cannot be said to be an industry but it has been pointed out that it is like an Educational Institution and Educational Institution is held to be an industry. 11.Accordingly to us also, educational institution is an ‘industry’ and as such the Labour Court after taking into consideration this aspect has held that the opposite party-workman is entitled for remuneration of Rs. 450/- to be paid from 1.6.1993 to 1.1.1999, hence the Labour Court after taking into consideration all aspect of the matter has passed a well reasoned order and we sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the power of the appellate Court. 12.It is settled that the order can judicially be reviewed if any perversity or any error apparent on the face of record or the order is without any jurisdiction, but no such exception is available in this case. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed having no merit. Petition dismissed.