Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.

Disposing of W.P. No. 648 of 1959, which was a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by the Railway Employees' Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Park Town, Madras, for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the presiding officer, labour court, Madras, from proceeding further with the hearing of a claim petition No. 160 of 1959 on its file. That petition was filed by one Jayaraman, who was a workman employed by the bank purporting to be under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before we refer to the allegations in this petition it is necessary to refer to an application made earlier by the Railway Employees' Co-operative Bank State Union, members of which were employees of the bank under S.51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, for a declaration that the normal hours of work for the employees of the bank shall be 33 1/2 hours a week and that the employees are entitled to overtimes wages in respect of overtime work beyond 33 1/2 hours per week. The bank's case was that the hours of work for the employees were not fixed and that they were allowed to leave office at about 4-30 p.m. If they had finished the work, but if they did not, they had to remain even after 4-30 p.m. to complete their work. The Commissioner of Labour who is the authority to hear and dispose of applications under this section held that the normal hours of work prior to 1 April 1948 were only 33 1/2 hours per week. As regards the question of overtime wages, he held that the employees were not entitled to any protection under S.50 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, in respect of overtime wages for hours in excess of 33 1/2 hours. It is subsequent to this order which was passed on 31 December 1958 that the petition of Jayaraman above referred to was filed on 7 April 1959.The petitioner alleged that under the orders of the Commissioner of Labour above-mentioned, under Ss.50 and 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, the privilege of normal hours of work was protected at 33 1/2 hours per week and hence he was entitled to be remunerated for the extra hours of work that is, the overtime beyond 33 1/2 hours per week, at double the wages which he estimated at Rs. 653.17 as per the particulars given by him. He prayed that the labour court may be pleased to compute the value of the benefit of overtime allowance of Rs. 653.17 under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and grant him appropriate relief.

The bank filed a counter-statement raising inter alia the objection that the petition was not sustalnable under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the claim made by the petitioner Jayaraman was not a benefit which he will be entitled to within the meaning of that provision. The bank further referred to the order of the Labour Commissioner and relied on it in so far as it held that the employees were not entitled to overtime payment as one of the privileges under S.50 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. It was expressly pleaded that the said order of the Commissioner of Labour had become final and the appellant was therefore precluded from agitating the question of overtime payment in respect of less than 48 hours of work in a week, flaying filed this counter-statement, the bank thereafter filed the petition under Art. 226, W.P. No. 648 of 1959, out of which this appeal arises for the issue of a writ of prohibition on the ground that the industrial tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., held on a construction of S. 33C(2) that that sub-section indicated that the legislature intended it a wider scope so as to comprehend all claims which arise between the employer and workmen in their character of employer and workmen. As regards the point whether in view of the decision of the Labour commissioner under S.51 of the Shops and Establishments Act, there can be any claim for overtime wages, the learned Judge