JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed wherein the order dated 26.5.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Misc. Case No.18 of 1999 has been assailed wherein the order has been passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by which the claim of the petitioners to compute the monetary benefit for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998 has been rejected. 2. The fact leading to file an application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the applicants, who claim to be permanent worker under management of Nildunguri Sisal Estate, Nildunguri, District-Sambalpur. According to the petitioners, as per the Award of Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979, they are entitled to monthly wages at the pay scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Committee at page-50 of the report, i.e., Rs.200-250/- per month besides D.A. and A.D.A. as revised from time to time by the State Government. But in spite of repeated request of the petitioners, the opposite party-Management did not pay the wages as per the said Award and as such, arrear wages remained outstanding. Hence, they had filed I.D. Misc. Case No.24 of 1996 before the Tribunal claiming arrear wages up to 31.12.1998 and the Tribunal by its order dated 18.5.1998 has directed the opposite party-Management to pay the arrears within three months. The present petitioners have filed for arrear wages covering the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998 to be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. The case of the opposite party-Management is that the Fourth Pay Committee Report came into force with effect from 1.1.1974 after notification of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1974. As per the Clause-1 Rule-2, the Revised Scale of Pay Rules were made applicable to persons in whole time employment of Government and these rules would not apply to persons paid out of contingency or persons not drawing pay in the regular pay. According to the opposite party-Management, as the petitioners were not appointed or drawing pay in the regular scale of pay of the State Government and rather being daily labourers were being paid from contingency of the Government, they are not entitled to the benefit of Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1974. According to the opposite party-Management, as the petitioners were not appointed or drawing pay in the regular scale of pay of the State Government and rather being daily labourers were being paid from contingency of the Government, they are not entitled to the benefit of Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1974. According to the opposite party-Management, the casual labouers are being paid as per wages fixed by the State Government under Minimum Wages Act and the workers without any grumbling having been receiving their wages prescribed by the Government in Labour and Employment Department. The further case of the opposite party-Management is that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal has become infructuous and inapplicable in view of material change of circumstances more so after revision of wages for casual labouers by the Government from time to time. According to the opposite party-Management, since the permanent labouers are getting their regular wages prescribed by Labour and Employment Department of Government of Orissa, question of payment of differential arrear wages does not arise because Award passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979 was finalized during the period when there was no specific wage rate fixed by the Government for different categories of the workers. The opposite party-Management further contended that the aforesaid Award was passed with presumption that Nildunguri Sisal Estate was earning profit regularly like other farms, but the real fact is that it is a loss making unit of the Government and the consecutive loss from 1963-1964 to 1999-2000 has crossed a staggering height of Rs.2,34,67,676/-. As such, since the farm incurring heavy loss and as the permanent labourers of the farm have crossed more than 67 years approximately and have crossed the limit prescribed by the Government, it may not be possible to pay wages as per the Award. 4. The Industrial Tribunal after appreciating the rival submission of the parties and going through the evidence produced before it, has passed an order, by which, the claim of the petitioners have been rejected mainly on the ground that since the Award has been passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979, which cannot be in force now in view of the change scenario when the Government has notified minimum wages for different type of workers, namely, unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high skilled employees employed in Government and other establishments of the State of Orissa. The Tribunal has taken a note of fact that the Award has been passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979, at that time there was no minimum wages having been notified by the Government and on that pretext the Tribunal has passed the said Award, which has already been enforced by the opposite party-Management, the Government thereafter has notified the minimum wages by virtue of the notification having been issued by the competent authority and as such, they cannot claim the benefit of the Award automatically in view of the changed circumstances. The Tribunal has also taken note of fact that all the workers have now crossed the age of 60 years, which itself suggest they are not eligible to hold the post as per the date of the compulsory retirement having been fixed by the State Government under the service code. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the farm in question incurs heavy loss. The order passed by the Tribunal under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is before us for judicial scrutiny. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. It is evident that a reference has been made by the Government of Orissa in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication as per their order dated 22.9.1979. The reference is:- “Whether the pay scales/wages of the Workmen employed by the managements of Nildungri Sisal Estates, Nildungri, Sambalpur need any revision in the light of the recommendations of the last Pay Committee for similar/identical categories of workmen employed in other Departments? If so, what should be the details and from which date the workmen are entitled to the benefits?” 7. The Industrial Tribunal after taking note of the fact and the documents produced before it, has passed an Award on 22.4.1983 by holding that the permanent labouers as per the list Ext.A should be paid monthly wages at the pay scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Committee at page-50 of the Report, i.e., Rs.200-250/- per month besides, the D.A. and A.D.A. as revised from time to time by the State Government. The casual or seasonal workmen should be paid at similar rate for the number of days they are engaged. 8. The casual or seasonal workmen should be paid at similar rate for the number of days they are engaged. 8. It is evident from the Award that the Tribunal has answered the reference, especially regarding implementation of recommendation of Fourth Pay Committee. It is further evident that the reference is not regarding the entitlement of the workers on the basis of recommendation of the subsequent Pay Revision Committee. It is submitted by the parties that the Award passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979 is pending for its consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court after having been confirmed by this Court. 9. The subject matter of the present writ petition is for scrutinizing the legality and impropriety of the order passed by the Tribunal based on the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby and whereunder the petitioners, 30 in numbers, have claimed arrear wages from the opposite party-Management on the basis of Award dated 23.4.1983 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979 for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998. 10. As we have already expressed hereinabove that the Award is especially for answering the reference regarding entitlement of the workmen for recommendation of pay scale on the basis of recommendation of Fourth Pay Revision Committee and the same has been answered in favour of the workmen. 11. We are of the considered view that if reference is being answered by the Tribunal, the outcome of the same is strictly confined to it, meaning thereby, if the reference is for implementation of recommendation of Fourth Pay Revision Committee adopted by the State Government of Orissa, it will stick to the benefit related to the recommendation of Fourth Pay Revision Committee and not for subsequent recommendations of the Pay Commission. It is not in dispute that the claim, which the petitioners have made before the Tribunal, is for arrear for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998, the said period relates to the period of Sixth Pay Revision, which has got nothing to do with the recommendation of Fourth Pay Revision Committee. The stand of the opposite party-Management is that the day when the Award has been passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979, there was no minimum wages, but thereafter, the Government has came out with the notification regarding applicability of minimum wages, which these workers are getting without any protest. 12. The stand of the opposite party-Management is that the day when the Award has been passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979, there was no minimum wages, but thereafter, the Government has came out with the notification regarding applicability of minimum wages, which these workers are getting without any protest. 12. It is settled that the provision of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is an executing procedure meaning thereby, if there is no dispute regarding money claim of the workers, it has to be computed in terms of money and to be paid in favour of the workmen. It is evident from the provision as contained in Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act that the said provision is not for adjudicating the claim. 13. We, after going through the averments made by the workmen/petitioners, wherein they have claimed the arrears of wages for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998 on the basis of Award passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979, but the subsequent claim has seriously been disputed by the opposite party-Management on the grounds as stated above. 14. In view thereof, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not erred in passing the order by rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Taking into consideration the factual aspect and the legal position, i.e., the Award is only for settling the claim of the workmen for fixing their entitlement on the basis of recommendation of Fourth Pay Revision, which was the reference and as such, the workmen cannot take the plea that whenever new revision will come, they will take benefit of the revision of pay scale on the basis of the Award passed in I.D. Case No.7 of 1979 since there is no reference and Award to that effect. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the age of the workmen, who have crossed more than 60 years, which is the maximum age provided for remaining in service under the service code applicable to the State Government employees and since these workers have crossed the age of 60 years, hence there is no question of getting salary or wages on the basis of recommendation of the pay committee. 15. 15. We, after taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter and also considering the reason given by the Tribunal in the order impugned, are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the same. 16. In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.