The court clarified the interpretation of S.33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that it covers all kinds of benefits, both monetary and non-monetary.

1. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction for vending toddy from shop No. 12 of Pullikada, Quilon for the three successive years 1960-61,1961-62 and 1962-63. The period for which the petitioner purchased the right to vend toddy at the last of these occasions or the petitioner's licence, as it is called expired on 1-4-1963; and at the auction for the year 1963-64 the petitioner was not the successful bidder. Respondents 2 to 9 were toddy tappers employed for the purpose of collecting toddy from the trees comprised in the petitioner's auction, and were getting wages at 18nps. per bottle of toddy. They filed claim petitions 783 to 789 and 793 of 1963 before the Labour Court Quilon, claiming retrenchment compensation as well as notice pay, on the ground that they had been in continuous service for three years under the petitioner, and had been retrenched from service. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the claim petition No. 783 of 1963; Ext. P-2 is a copy of the objection filed by the petitioner thereto; and ex. P-3 is copy of the order of the Labour Court on the said petition. The Labour Court adjudged that the claimants were entitled to retrenchment compensation but not to notice pay. This order of the Labour Court is sought to be quashed in this O. P.

2. The petitioner's counsel raised three points:

(1) That S.33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is inapplicable to the case and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the controversy,

(2) That the petitioner was not the "Employer" of the claimants respondents, but that the Government, or the Excise Department thereof was their employer, and

(3) That the claimants-respondents had voluntarily quitted service under the petitioner long before the period of his auction expired on 1-4-1963 and had entered service under the new contractor who bid for 1963-64 and that therefore there was no retrenchment.

3. In addition to the above three points, the petitioner's counsel attempted to argue that the claimants-respondents were not "workmen" within the meaning of the Act, and as expounded by the judicial decisions, as the petitioner had no control in regard to the manner and the method of their doing their work. As this point was not raised before the Labour Court, and as no foundation has been laid for it in the pleadings, and as the question involves investigation of facts, I must decline to pronounce upon this aspect of the question.

4. The 2nd and the 3rd of the contentions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner may be disposed of first.

5. The argument that the Government or the Excise Department thereof, and not the petitioner should be regarded as the employer must be repelled on the state of the authorities as they stand. S.2 (g) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act"

employer means

(1) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority on any department of the Central Government or a State Government the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department." S.10 of the Travancore Abkari Act 10 of 1073 provides interalia that no toddy shall be drawn from any tree except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Collector. Inter-relating, language of the above two provisions, the petitioner's counsel argued that the industry of toddy tapping was carried op by or under the authority of Government, and therefore, the government is the employer. In Carlsbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Co., Ltd., v. P. K. Sarkar and others (AIR. 1952 Cal. 6) the question arose whether the Mineral Water Manufacturing Company which had secured the rights of providing mineral water on the East Indian Railway System, subject to the right of the Government to fix the price and to control the work of the company to some extent was the employer" with respect to the workmen employed under them; or whether the Government by reason of the contract entered into with the company for pro