This petition arises out of an application made under S. 33(2) of the industrial Dispute Act 1947, for computation in terms of money the good attendance bonus for October 1958, granted to the workers concerned by an award made under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Certain demands were made by a section of the workmen of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co., Ltd., on 29 March 1955, on the management and this was followed by a strike notice on 5 October 1955. The workmen concerned actually went on a strike on 24 November 1955. The same day, the State Government, in exercise of their powers under S. 10(1)(c) of the Act, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. But it would appear that an agreement was arrived at between the management and the workmen to have the dispute referred to private arbitration under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. In view of this agreement, the next day, i.e., 25 November 1955, the strike was called off. Evidently giving effect to the agreement the Government directed a reference to private arbitration. The original reference under S. 10(1)(c) stood therefore dismissed by the industrial tribunal on 29 February 1956. The private arbitration ended in an award dated 19 January 1957. On the foot of this award, a decree of Court also followed which is dated 12 April 1957. One of the reliefs awarded the workmen

Before the labour court, on behalf of the management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co., Ltd., the objection was taken that the application was not maintainable under S. 33C(2). Their contention was that what was contemplated by "any benefit" in Sub-sec. (2) of S. 33C should be under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chap. VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that, if any benefit accrued to any workman outside the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, that, should not be subject matter of an application under S. 33C(2). This view of the scope of Sub- sec. (2) of S. 33C found favour with the labour court with the result that the application for conversion of the benefit into money was dismissed. The aggrieved workman has, therefore, come up to this Court under Art. 226 of the ConstitutionFor the petitioner in this Court, it has been strenuously contended that Sub-sec. (2) of S. 33C is of a wide scope, uncontrolled by the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) and that any benefit, whatever the sources of it may be, provided it related to the terms and conditions of employment of a workman, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, would fall within the scope of Sub-sec. (2). In support of this contention particular reference is made to the repealed S. 20 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. Sub-section (1) of this section is in terms identical with those of Sub-sec. (1) of S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sub-section (2) of S. 20 of the 1950 Act reads

"Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit under an award or decision of an industrial tribunal which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may, subject to the rules made under this Act, be determined by that industrial tribunal, and the amount so determined may be recovered as provided for in Sub-sec. (1)." *

The point made with reference to this Sub-section is that the omission in Sub-sec. (2) of S. 33C of the words "under an award or decision of an industrial tribunal" is significant and points to the fact that the legislature intended to make the scope of Sub-sec (2) of S. 33C wider than what it was under Sub-sec. (2) of S. 20 of the 1950 Act. The point thus urged is one of some importance and require a careful scrutiny

The object of S. 33C patently is to provide a cheap and speedy remedy for the workman to have the benefit of a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chap. VA realized through the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act. Th