( 1 ) THIS writ petition comes up before us on reference by our learned Brothers, Kondaiah, J. and Lakshmaiah J. principally for the consideration of the question "whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction and is competent to entertain an application under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by a single or a group of workmen in his or their individual capacity claiming minimum bonus under S. 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act against his or their employer and decide the questions relating to the claim of minimum bonus in view of S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act?". Our learned brothers also observed that incidentally the nature, scope and ambit of S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act falls for decision.

( 2 ) M/s. Anand Oil Industries, a Partnership firm, hereinafter referred to as the employer, has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against the Labour Court Hyderabad (1st respondent herein) prohibiting it from deciding or proceeding with M. P. No. 300/75 on its file. To that petition are impleaded 12 of its workmen as respondents 2 to 13.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 13 filed application M. P. No. 300/75 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad under S, 33c (2) of the industrial Disputes Act against their employer, the petitioner herein for payment of minimum bonus of 4% for the accounting years 1964-65 to 1970-71 and a minimum bonus of 8-1/3% for the accounting years 1971-72 to 1974-75 in terms of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. In that petition they also claimed the difference between the actual pay received by them and the minimum wages which they were entitled to receive every month from 5-7-1975 onwards under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948 ). They claimed that they were entitled to receive extra wages for having worked on eight national and festival paid holidays as per the Holidays Act, overtime wages for working daily four hours over the normal eight hours of work and also wages for the suspension period,

( 4 ) EVEN without filing a counter to the said petition, the employer has rushed to this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of prohibition inter alia contending that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the workmen under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

( 5 ) AT the hearing of the Writ Petition Mr. V. Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the Employer conceded that the claim of the workmen for holiday wages overtime wages and suspension wages was entertainable by the Labour Court under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He confined his contentions with reference to the claim of the workmen for minimum bonus payable under Section 10 (2) of the Payment of Bonus Ad, 1965 (Act 21 of 1965) and to their claim for the minimum wage payable under Ss. 3 and 12 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1848 read with G. O. Ms. No. 559 Employment and Social Welfare (T) Department dated 30/06/1915. Having regard to the above, we must hold that the Labour Court cannot be prohibited from entertaining and enquiring into the present petition under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in so far as it relates to the claim of the workmen for wages for working on holidays, for over-time wages and wages for suspension period. The present petition for a writ of prohibition in so far as the said claim is concerned must be held to be not maintainable. We therefore Limit our discussion to the question whether a petition under S, 33-C (2) is not maintainable with respect to a claim for minimum bonus and minimum wages payable under the respective statutes,

( 6 ) THE first contention of Mr. V, Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though minimum bonus is payable to every employee as fixed u/s. 10 (2) of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of S. 22 thereof any dispute with respect to bonus payable under the Act. having been "deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Di