JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only question posed for answer in the present appeal is whether the appellants were entitled for the benefit of Ad hoc Cash Award Scheme for the year 1998-1999. 3. In an application made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Labour Court decided the admissibility of the amount under the aforesaid scheme in favour of the contingent employees i.e. appellants herein. 4. The aggrieved employer approached the writ court in W.P. (L) No. 6308 of 2002 and 2010 (2) JLJR 267 . wherein the impugned award was set aside by the learned Single Judge by order dated 16.4.2009, impugned herein. 5. The appellants contend that they are fully covered under the Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme 1998-1999 like the similar scheme of the previous years starting from 1994-1995 onwards. The employer had no reason to depart from the scope of the scheme of 1998-1999 to deny them the benefits. 6. The employer/respondents have two-fold arguments to make:- (i) That the claim of the workmen cannot be determined in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when a specific objection was raised relating to the applicability of the scheme itself to the category of contingent workmen i.e. the appellants for the year 1998-1999. (ii) That Annexure-A to the 1998-1999 scheme read with clauses 2.02 and 3.04.1 did not conceive of such a category of contingent workmen for being entitled to the benefits of the cash award scheme which require payments to be regulated for a standard 4-drill project. An additional ground has been urged during the course of hearing that the financial condition of the employer did not permit such conferment of cash award to the category of contingent employees for the year 1998-1999. 7. We have examined the objections raised by the employer on each of those counts and found no substance therein for the reasons indicated hereunder. It is not in dispute that the contingent workmen i.e. the appellants were beneficiary of cash award scheme initiated in the year 1994-1995 onwards till the year 1997-1998 i.e. the year preceding to the instant cash award scheme 1998-1999. It is not in dispute that the contingent workmen i.e. the appellants were beneficiary of cash award scheme initiated in the year 1994-1995 onwards till the year 1997-1998 i.e. the year preceding to the instant cash award scheme 1998-1999. In order to test the merits of the objections raised by the employer, on an earlier date, we directed the respondents/ employer to bring on record the cash award scheme along with enclosed appendix/ annexure thereto for the relevant years 1994-1995 onward till 1998-1999 in complete form. This was felt necessary to assist in the interpretational process of Clause 2.01 of the Cash Award Scheme and adjudication of the main issue involved herein. The same has been brought on record by counter affidavit filed on 19.9.2017. For better appreciation, we intend to reproduce the relevant title and scope of Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for drilling operations from the years 1994-1995 up to 1998-1999. AD-HOC CASH AWARD SCHEME FOR DRILLING OPERATIONS 1994-95 "1. Title - In order to motivate the workers for improving productivity, an Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for drilling operations is introduced with immediate effect. The scheme shall be called. Adhoc Cash Award Scheme for drilling operations in MECL and shall hereinafter be referred to as the Award Scheme for drilling operations. 2. Scope - The Scheme shall be applicable to all persons on regular and contingent basis engaged in the projects, for drilling operation excluding the trainees and jobs done through Contracts.............." AD-HOC CASH AWARD SCHEME FOR MINING OPERATIONS 1995-96 "1. Title - In order to motivate the workers for improving productivity, an Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for mining operations is notified as under. The Scheme shall be called Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme 1995-96, for mining operation in MECL and shall hereinafter be referred to as The Award Scheme for mining operations. 2. Scope - The Scheme shall be applicable to all persons on regular and contingent basis engaged in the Projects, excluding the trainees and jobs done through contracts between different employees has to be based on the following criteria: (i) Actual physical attendance put by an employee at respective work site. (ii) Extra efforts put by an employee to improve productivity." AD-HOC CASH AWARD SCHEME FOR DRILLING OPERATIONS 1996-97 "1.00. Title - In order to motivate the workers for improving productivity an Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for Drilling Operation is proposed as under. (ii) Extra efforts put by an employee to improve productivity." AD-HOC CASH AWARD SCHEME FOR DRILLING OPERATIONS 1996-97 "1.00. Title - In order to motivate the workers for improving productivity an Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for Drilling Operation is proposed as under. The Scheme shall be called Ad-Hoc Cash Award Scheme 1996-97, for Drilling Operations in MECL and shall hereinafter be referred to as The Award Scheme for Drilling Operations. 2.00. Scope - The Scheme shall be applicable to all persons on regular and contingent basis engaged in the projects, excluding the trainees and jobs done through contracts.............." The Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for the year 1997-1998 is enclosed to the supplementary affidavit of the appellants dated 13.10.2015 and is being extracted hereunder: AD-HOC CASH AWARD SCHEME FOR DRILLING OPERATIONS 1997-98 "1.00. Title - In order to motivate the workers for improving productivity on Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for Drilling Operations is proposed as under. The Scheme shall be called Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme 1997-98 for Drilling Operations in MECL and shall hereinafter be referred to as The Award Scheme for Drilling Operations. 2.00. Scope: 2.01. The Scheme shall be applicable to all persons at the Projects, excluding the trainees and jobs done through contracts.........." AD-HOC CASH AWARD SCHEME FOR DRILLING OPERATIONS 1998-99 "1.00. Title - In order to motivate the working for improving productivity an Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme for Drilling Operations will be implemented as under during 1998-99. The Scheme shall be called Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme 1998-99 for Drilling Operations in MECL and shall hereinafter be referred to as The Award Scheme for Drilling Operations. 2.00. Scope: 2.01. The Scheme shall be applicable to all employees at the Drilling Projects, excluding the trainees and job done through contracts.........." 8. From the title and scope of the Cash Award Scheme for drilling operations of every such year, it is clear that the Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme was conceived to motivate the workers for improving productivity. 2.00. Scope: 2.01. The Scheme shall be applicable to all employees at the Drilling Projects, excluding the trainees and job done through contracts.........." 8. From the title and scope of the Cash Award Scheme for drilling operations of every such year, it is clear that the Ad-hoc Cash Award Scheme was conceived to motivate the workers for improving productivity. From a comparison of the language of the respective Cash Award Scheme from the years 1994-95 till the current year 1998-99 in question, it is clear that while the schemes of the years 1994 to 1996-1997 did use the expression regular and contingent employees both, the scheme of 1997-98 and 1998-99 used the expression the Scheme shall be applicable to all persons/employees at the Drilling Projects excluding the trainees and job done through contracts. 1998-1999, scheme consciously excludes the trainees and job done through contracts but conspicuously did not exclude category of contingent employees. The expression all employees leaves no room of doubt that it is an improvement in the language employed from the earlier schemes where though the scheme was made applicable to regular and contingent employees but both the expressions were used by way of abundant caution in the earlier schemes. If the scheme of 1998-1999 did not explicitly exclude the contingent employees from its purview while specifically excluding the trainees therefrom then the contingent employees could not have been excluded from the purview of the cash award scheme for 1998-1999. It is undisputed state of facts that same contingent employees were allowed benefits of cash award scheme for the previous years being guided by the language employed in those schemes itself. Conspicuously enough, the respondents has failed to enclose any such corresponding appendix/ Annexure-A to the previous scheme in order to make good their distinction between the scheme of 1998-1999 and that of the previous years, so far as the category of personnel who were entitled to the benefits thereof. In any case, if the main provision of the Rule or the scheme did not permit of two interpretation, the category of personnel described in Appendix-A thereto would definitely not disentitle the appellants of the benefit of the scheme. In any case, if the main provision of the Rule or the scheme did not permit of two interpretation, the category of personnel described in Appendix-A thereto would definitely not disentitle the appellants of the benefit of the scheme. On this count, we are satisfied that the employer did not have any valid justification to deny the benefits of the cash award scheme to the contingent employees, like the appellants, when un-disputably, the company had shown improved productivity in the year 1998-1999, as a result whereof other category of regular employees were granted the benefit of cash award scheme. The plea of financial constraints therefore also does not cut any ice. 9. Coming to the objection relating to maintainability of application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, we do not bear any doubt that mere raising of an objection in itself does not amount to ousting the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in entertaining such application for computation of the admissible dues, available under scheme or award or under the settlement between the parties. Incidental questions raised even in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be determined by the Labour Court and cannot be permitted to deny the fruits of such a scheme, award and settlement to the employees. In this connection reliance is placed upon the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. P.S. Rajagopalan, AIR 1964 SC 743 , para-18 thereof, which reads as under:- "18. Besides, there can be no doubt that when the Labour Court is given the power to allow an individual workman to execute or implement his existing individual rights, it is virtually exercising execution powers in some cases and it is well settled that it is open to the executing court to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution. It is, of course true that the executing court cannot go behind the decree, nor can it add to or subtract from the provision of the decree. These limitations apply also to the Labour Court but like the executing court the Labour Court would also be competent to interpret the award or settlement on which a workman bases his claim under Section 33-C(2). These limitations apply also to the Labour Court but like the executing court the Labour Court would also be competent to interpret the award or settlement on which a workman bases his claim under Section 33-C(2). Therefore, we feel no difficulty in holding that for the purpose of making the necessary determination under Section 33-C(2) it would in appropriate cases, be open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workman's right rests." 10. Reliance is also placed on the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 58 , para-11 thereof which is as under:- "11. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak this Court held as under: "12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Section 33-C(2) like that of the executing court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution." (Supplied to add emphasis not part of the original text) 11. The learned Single Judge, however, appears to have taken a different view of the matter on the ground that the cash award scheme of the year 1998-1999 were not applicable to the category of contingent employees. The learned Single Judge, however, appears to have taken a different view of the matter on the ground that the cash award scheme of the year 1998-1999 were not applicable to the category of contingent employees. The learned Single Judge also seems to have been impressed by the plea of the employer on the applicability of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to such an application made on behalf of workmen for computation of their due wages/benefits under cash award scheme. 12. However, in view of the foregoing discussions, we do not agree with the view of the learned Single Judge, on both counts. 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. The award rendered by the learned Labour Court, Hazaribagh in M.J. Case No. 4 of 1999 is restored. The appeal stands allowed.