Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- This appeal by special leave is filed by 16 workmen of the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur against the common order dated 14th February, 1979 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alipur Road, Delhi in applications bearing L.C.A. Nos. 389, 391 to 393 and 395 to 406 of 1978 filed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) rejecting their claims.

2. The appellants filed the applications under section 33-C(2) of the Act for computation of the wages payable to them for certain periods as detailed in the respective petitions. Their case was that even though they had been engaged as C Grade Fitters, they were entitled to the salary and allowances payable to B Grade Fitters, since they were doing the same duties as B Grade Fitters. The Management contested the applications filed by the appellants stating that they were not maintainable since the principal question involved in all the applications related to the re-classification of the workmen concerned and that such a relief could not be claimed under section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court upheld the objection of the Management and rejected the applications by its common Order dated 14th February, 1979. Aggrieved by the said common order the appellants filed this appeal by special leave.

3. It is not disputed that the appellants had been employed as C Grade Fitters and in order to get the salary and allowances payable to B Grade Fitters they had to be promoted to the cadre of B Grade Fitters on their passing certain trade tests. Admittedly, the appellants had not been so promoted. But, their case before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was that since they were doing the same duties which are performed by a B Grade Fitter, they were entitled to claim the wages payable to B Grade Fitters under section 33-C(2) of the Act. Section 33-C(2) of the Act reads thus :

"33-C(2). 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 the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months.

Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period by such further period as he may think fit."

4. The above provision came up for consideration before this Court in the Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan, (1964) 3 SCR 140. At pages 150-151 of the said Report this Court observed thus :

"The Legislative history to which we have just referred clearly indicates that having provided broadly for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes on the basis of collective bargaining, the legislature recognised that individual workmen should be given a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights, and so, inserted S. 33-A in the Act in 1950 and added S. 33-C in 1956. These two provisions illustrate the cases in which individual workmen can enforce their rights without having to take recourse to S. 10(1) of the Act, or without having to depend upon their Union to espouse their cause. Therefore, in construing S. 33-C we have to bear in mind two relevant considerations. The construction should not be so broad as to bring within the scope of S. 33-C cases which would fall under S. 10(1) Where industrial disputes arise between employees acting collectively and their employers, they must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Act, as for instance, by reference under S. 10(1) These disputes cannot be brought within the purview of S