Ex-workmen who were employed during the period for which they claim to be entitled to receive money or benefits from the employer are "workmen" within the meaning of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and are entitled to file applications for recovery of money due from the employer.

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This is a batch of thirty-one writ applications filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the same petitioners, namely, Employers in relation to Patherdih Colliery of Messrs. Patherdih Sudamdih Colliery Private Limited. The main application is C. W. J. C. 108 of 1967 and the other applications are said to have been filed as a matter of abundant caution. This judgment and order will govern all these thirty-one cases. The petitioners prayer is that this Court should quash the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad, dated the 30th January, 1967, by a writ of Certiorari. The impugned order had been passed by the Labour Court in connection with applications filed by certain persons under Sec.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), for determining some money said to have been due to the petitioners before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has allowed these applications holding that the petitioners before it were entitled to the amounts of money mentioned in a schedule attached to the order which is the subject-matter of these writ applications.

2. The relevant facts are as follows: Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 33 of C. W. J. C. 108 of 1967 had been employed by the present petitioners as miners on piece rate basis. For the sake of convenience, I will describe the petitioners, henceforth, as the employers and opposite party Nos. 3 to 33 as the employees. In 1958, the employers introduced tubs of the capacity 40 1/2 cubit feet for carrying coal cut by the miners. The employees case before the Labour Court was that they had always carried coal loading the tubs to their full capacity and they were entitled to receive Rs. 3.61 per tub, but the employers had been paying at the rate of Rs. 3.22 per tub only. Thus each of the employees claimed the difference for the years 1958 to 1965. The contention of the employers was that the employees were no longer in service from the 15th July, 1965 and as such, they were not "workmen." within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the applications were not maintainable. On facts the employers case was, that, two types of tubs were in use in their mines, one having a capacity of 40 1/2 cubic feet and the other of 36 cubic feet. But, as the seam was very much inclined, the tubs used to be filled up upto a line 2 1/2 inches below the top edge of the 40 1/2 cubic feet tubs. Therefore, it was contended, that proper payments had always been made to the employees as long as they were in service. The employers also contended that there was an agreement between them and the Koila Mazdoor Sangh, the recognised union of this colliery on the 19th January, 1958, to the above effect of carrying only 38 cubic feet of coal in the 40 1/2 cubic feet tubs.

3. On these contentions raised by the parties, the Labour Court framed several points, of which the following three points (which were points Nos. 1, 2 and 6 before the Labour Court) have been re-ogitated by Sri S.K. Mazumdar appearing for the employers:-

-

(1). "Did the opposite party take the load from the applicants only upto a demarcating line 2 1/2 inches below the top edge of 40 1/2 C. ft. capacity tubs? If so, what is its effect?

(2) "Was there any agreement on 19-1-1958 between the parties as pleaded by the opposite party? If so, what is its effect ?"

(3) "What is the effect of the applicants not being in service of the opposite party from 15-7-1965?"

On taking evidence and hearing the parties the Presiding Officer has come to the conclusion that the case of the employees was correct that they had always filled up the 40 1/2 cubic feet tubs to their fullest capacity. The employers contention that these tubs used to be loaded upto a line 2 1/2 inches below the top edge was not accepted. Secondly, the Presiding Officer has come to the conclusion that the alleged agreement between the parties relied upon by the employers dated th