ORDER
R. Balia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The only question that arises for consideration in this case in which the petitioner challenges the order of Labour Court dated June 19, 1998 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is whether the Labour Court could make the order in question in exercise of the jurisdiction. The respondent has filed an application under Section 33-C(2) claiming himself to be the workmen of the petitioner cinema and raising a demand for computing dearness allowance, overtime working, and the bonus payable to him since 1982 until April 30, 1983 when the application was filed. Petitioner denied the existence of very relationship of the employer-employee between the two. The first question which the Labour Court addresses itself for determination is whether the workmen is able to prove that he was working in the establishment of the opponent. Where the question is to determine about the existence of relationship between the parties from which right to any claim flows, the question raises about the issue of entitlement to the benefit arising out of such relationship. Section 33-C(2) reads that :
“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, if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to which amount at which stage 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 within a period not exceeding three months.”
3. The very nature of the statute suggests that question as to entitlement of the workman to receive any money or benefit must pre-exist before inviting adjudication as to the amount payable to the recipient under such entitlement. It is in the nature of execution proceedings where right to receive money or benefit is already determined or admitted, the question is only to the quantum of money or benefit or value of benefit which is to reach the recipient. The issue is now beyond the pale of doubt, that the question as to entitlement is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of enquiry under Section 33-C(2). For that the remedy is raising of an industrial dispute regarding entitlement, if any, and to seek adjudication thereon. Section 33-C(2) does not include cases falling under Section 10(1)33-C(2). Reference in this connection may be made to Central Bank of India v. P. S. Rajagopalan (1963-II-LLJ-89) (SC) and Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994-I-LLJ-642) (SC).
4. As in this case the very basic question about the entitlement to any monetary benefit or other benefit which can be valued in terms of money is in dispute, in my opinion, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 33-C(2) and embark upon an enquiry once issue was clearly before it about the entitlement of the claimant to any right.
5. Petition must therefore succeed on this ground alone. The impugned order of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) is quashed. However, this will not preclude the respondent workman to have recourse to other remedial courses under the Industrial Disputes Act, if any, available to him.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.