On the application of respondent 2 under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the labour court, Coimbatore, found that he was a fitter from January 1956, among the staff of the petitioner, and that, as such, he was entitled to salary on the scales Rs. 44-11-0 to Rs. 64-11-0 and to his first increment on 1 October 1958, and computed his total benefit upto 30 September 1959 at Rs. 316-8-0. This petition by the management under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash that order. The main contention of the petitioner, which appears to be one of its objections before the labour court but the not particularly decided by that Court, is that the question, whether respondent 2 was a fitter, as claimed by him or only a fitter-helper, as the management would have it, was not within the purview of the application under S. 33C(2) of the Act. Apparently, the labour court proceeded on the view it had jurisdiction to decide the issue

The respondent 2 was entertained by the petitioner, which is a textile mill at Coimbatore, as a temporary worker on 17 January 1954, and was made permanent from 1 January 1956 in the mechanical shop department. Before that time he was in the lowest category of workers classified as unskilled workers and was drawing a basic wage of Rs. 26 per month. In about January 1956, he was directed to work in the reeling section, where the conversion of hand reels into power reels was going on, was designated as a power reel fitter. After the process of conversion was completed, he was transferred on 1 April 1957 back to the mechanical shop department. His basic wage was enhanced to Rs. 32-8-0 with effect from 1 February, 1957, and he continued to receive wages on that scale until 3 October 1959, when he made the present claim as a fitter under S. 33C(2) claiming wages at Rs. 50-11-0 per month on basis of an award in Industrial Dispute No. 65 of 1958. Prior to that award, some of the textile mills of which the petitioner was one, and their workmen had, in relation to certain disputes, reached a settlement on 25 September 1956, the terms of which appear in a memorandum signed by the parties. Clause 15 of this memorandum stated that the wages and work-loads with regard to workers in the electrical and mechanical shop determents and automatic loom sections of the relative mills would be discussed between parties and the determination would be added to from part of the settlement. Failing to reach an agreement, this question was referred to for adjudication which ended in the said award published in the gazette, dated 18 February 1959. This award fixed the scale of pay for a fitter at Rs. 44-11-0 with effect from 1 October 1957. There is no dispute that if respondent 2 were a fitter, he would be entitled to wages at that rate. But according to the management, respondent 2 was never a fitter but only a fitter-helper ever during the time of the conversion of the hand reels into power reels, and notwithstanding his designation as a power reel fitter, the nature of work he did, continued to be the same and his designation was altered into a fitter-helper even from 1 April 1957. The management further stated that the mere fact that respondent 2 was called a power reel fitter during the short period between 1 January 1956 and 1 April, 1957, did not in itself entitle him to claim to be a fitter and that his status, in relation to the scale of salary he was entitled to draw, should be determined not merely with reference to the designation but the nature of the work he did. It was in such Court, the petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the labour court under S. 33C(2) to decide whether respondent 2 was a fitter or a fitter-helperThe petitioner contends that what was decided by the industrial tribunal in Industrial Disputes No. 65 of 1958 was the fixation of the scale of wages for a fitter and not whether respondent 2 belonged to that category or not. The question according to the petitioner, not being covered by