JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA J.:—This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated the 2nd of May, 1973 setting aside the order of the Labour Court Gauhati dated the 26th July, 1972. The facts are in a very narrow compass and the point involved is short.

2. The appellants, workmen of the respondent company, filed an application under S. 33C (2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, in the Labour Court asking it to compute their wages due from the respondent on the basis of certain settlements said to have been arrived at between them and the management. The Labour Court allowed their application in part and held that each of the workman was entitled to get Rs. 848/- from the respondent company @ Rs. 20/- per month from December, 1969 to March, 1972 and @ Rs. 12/- from March. 1970 to March, 1972. the claim of the workmen for Rs 13/- per month from February, 1971 to March, 1972 was rejected by the Labour Court. The management challenged the order of the Labour Court in Civil Rule No. 778 of 1972 by a writ application. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the order of the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.

3. It may be stated here that the only dispute between the management and the workmen in the proceeding under S. 33C. (2) of the Act was whether the employees in the Assam Sector were also entitled to take advantage of the settlement between the company and its employees in West Bengal. The quantum or the rate of extra wages to which the workmen would have been entitled if the advantages under the settlement were found available to them was not in dispute. In that view of the matter, the High Court was of the opinion, to quote the relevant words from its judgment -

"For conferring jurisdiction on a Labour Court under S. 33C(2), it is not only necessary that the workmen should be entitled to any money due but also that there should be a dispute about the amount of that money. It is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the amounts of money which have already been fixed by the settlement. That being the position, there is no question within the scope of S. 33C (2) for determination by the Labour Court in this case."

4. In our judgment the High Court has committed an error in so narrowly interpreting S. 33C(2) of the Act. The said provision runs as follows :

"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 and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such 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 appropriate Government." There are two parts of the sub-section as it stands after its amendment by Act 36 of 1964. The first part is concerned with the money claim simpliciter and the second part speaks about computation in terms of money of any benefit to which the workman is entitled. Although for appreciation of the point at issue there is no substantial difference between the two, we shall confine our discussion to the money claim only pure and simple. On a plain reading of the wordings of the Statute it would be found that where any workman is entitled to receive from employer any money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may be decided by the Labour Court. The expression "if any question arises as to the amount of money due" embraces within its ambit any one or more of the following kinds of disputes :-

(1) Whether there is any settlement or award as alleged?

(2) Whether any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money at all under any settlement or an award etc?

(3) If so, what will be the rate or quantum of such amount?

(4) Whether the amount claimed is due or not?

Broadly speaking, these will be the disputes which will be referabl