Rajamannar, C.J.

We are convinced that the petition under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was quite competent and the labour court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the contesting respondent. The claim was for arrears of salary and one month's salary in lieu of notice. The contention on behalf of the management before Ramachandra Ayyar, J., and before us on appeal was that, at the time when the application was made, the respondent was no longer in the service of the employer and therefore according to the definition, he would not be a "workman", and not being a workman, he would not be entitled to apply to the labour court. The contention was not accepted by the labour court.

In the first place it must be pointed out that there is nothing in S.33C(2) of the Act, which says that only a "workman" can apply under that provision. All that it says is that where a workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, the amount of such benefit may be determined by the labour court. The fallacy in the argument on behalf of the appellant is that S. 33C(2) expressly provides that only a "workman" on the date of the application can make the application. On