( 1 ) IN this group of petitions, the State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 12th May, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Recovery Applications no. 281 of 1993 to 289 of 1993, whereby the Labour Court has directed the State Government to pay a sum of rs. 33,151=00 to each of the respondents.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case as they emerge from the record are that the respondents were employed as daily wage employees in the Forest Department and all of them have completed minimum service of five years. It is the case of the respondents that, since the work performed by them is a permanent nature of work, they are required to be considered as regular employees and they should be granted all permissible allowances. It is further contended by the respondents that in view of the circular dated 17th October, 1988, all the employees were granted benefits. 2. 1. AS against that the say of the State Government is that the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable to the daily wagers of the Forest and environment Department engaged in the work of maintenance and repairs of constructions in that Department, and not to the daily wagers engaged in other types of work in that Department. It is further contended that respondents have not worked for 240 days continuously, and in view of that the respondents are not entitled for any benefits.

( 3 ) THE State Government has raised several disputes namely that the Forest Department is not covered under the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and the Labour Court could not have decided the issue under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Raval has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat Forest Producers, gatherers and Forest Workers Union v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (2) G. L. H. 302, and more particularly para 31, wherein it has been held that the Government resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is not applicable to the daily wagers engaged in other types of work in the forest Department. The relevant question which was considered in the said decision alongwith its answer is reproduced as under :- Que-3 "whether the petitioners or similarly situated employees of the Forest Department are entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988?" Ans-3 The Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable to the daily wagers of the Forest and Environment Department engaged in the work of maintenance and repairs of constructions in that Department, and not to the daily wagers engaged in other types of work in that Department. "3. 2. IN that view of the matter the order passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside. Even otherwise also in view of the law laid down by this court under Section 33-C (2) the Labour Court is merely existing Court and it cannot ascertain rights of the parties. Therefore also the order under Section 33-C (2) is required to be quashed and set aside. 3. 3. MR. Raval has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of india v. Ram Chadra Dubey and Ors. reported in (2001) 1 s. C. C. p. 73, wherein it has been held that the Labour court has jurisdiction under Section 33-C (2) and it extends to computation of a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right and not to computation of a benefit which is considered just and proper. In the present case the Circular dated 17th October, 1988 was not pre-existing right and it was required to be ascertained by the competent authority. 3. 4. MR. Raval has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Milan Cinema and Anr. , v. Maganlal nathalal Mistry, reported in 1999 Labour Law Journal p. 220, wherein, it is held that proceeding under Section 33-C (2) is in the nature of execution proceedings where right to receive money or benefit is already determined or admitted and the question is only to the quantum o