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 E