Antony Dominic, J.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an application filed by two retired workmen, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended that since retired employees are not workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act is not maintainable. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Sukumaran v. H.M.T.Ltd. [1999(1) KLT S.N.9 (Case No.10)], Everestee v. District Labour Officer [1999 (2) KLT 560] and Purandaran v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [2001(1) KLT 867], the learned Single Judge upheld this contention. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us.

2. Facts of the case are that the 1st appellant and the deceased 2nd appellant retired from the service of the 1st respondent in February and March, 1998 respectively. Thereafter, they filed C.P.46/99 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam invoking its powers under Section 33C(2) of the Act and claiming various monetary benefits that were allegedly due to them, from the 1st respondent. By Ext.P3 order dated 15.2.2003, the Labour court partially allowed their claim for annual increments, fixation, earned leave, and DA arrears. This order was challenged before the learned Single Judge and by the judgment under appeal, the order was set aside.

3. As far as the issue whether an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act filed by retired workmen is maintainable is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held that retired workman is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and that, therefore, the application filed was not maintainable.

4. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which defines 'workman', reads thus:

“Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

A reading of the above shows that the definition of 'workman' includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched and it does not include a workman who left the service of his employer, consequent to retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or availing of the benefit of a scheme for Voluntary Retirement.

5. Section 33C(2) of the Act provides for recovery of money due from an employer. Section 33C (2) in so far as it is relevant reads thus:

33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-

(1) xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

“(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