it would be at the option of the employer t:> allow the workiman to avail himself of the remedy provided by sub-s. (2), because he has merely to raise an objection on the ground that the right claimed by the workman is not admitted to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the workman's application. The claim wider s. 33C(2) clearly J?OStulates that the determination of the question about computmg the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be inciden 'al to the main determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court by sub-s.(2). As Maxwell in Interpretation of Statuies, p. 350, has observed 'where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such aces, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution; we must accordingly hold that s. 33C(2) takes within its purview cases of workmen who claimed that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of mo!'ley, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is. disputed by their employers.. Incidentally, it may be relevant to add that it would be somewhat odd that under sub-s. (3), the Labour Court should have been autho1ised to delegate the work of computing the money value of the benefit to the Commissioner if the determination of the said question was the only task assigned to the Labour Court under sub-s. (2). On the other hand, sub-s.(3) becomes inteliigible if it is held that what can be assigned to the Commissioner includes only a part of the assignment of the Labour Court under sub-s. (2)". Further on this Court observed:
