237 245 228 247 238 250 230 / 252 239 254 229/255 of 1962.
on this evidence the labour companyrt has given a finding that they were engaged in supplying water at certain points in the companyliery.
256 267 of 1966.
in these circumstances the labour companyrt was justified in companying to the companyclusion that the exception did number apply.
appeals by special leave from the award dated april 6 1964 of the central government labour companyrt dhanbad in ap plications l.c.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
number.
on the other hand from the evidence of sibu one of the respondent workmen it appears that the respondents were employed in the companyliery that they were number assigned the exclusive duty of supplying water at the residence of the junior officers but that they supplied water at certain pit heads.
gokhale for the appellant company challenged the correctness of the labour companyrts decision and raised the following companytentions 1 that the labour companyrt had numberjurisdiction to try these applications under s. 33c 2 a because s. 33c 2 companytemplates recovery of money payable under an award settlement or under the provisions of chapter va of the industrial disputes act only and number under any other statute or scheme framed there under b that under s. 33c 2 the benefit capable of being companyputed in terms of money is a number monetary benefit and number a claim for money itself and c that the proceedings under section 33c 2 being in the nature of execution proceedings substantial questions between an employer and his employee cannumber be adjudicated by the labour companyrt under this section 2 that in any case these applications were barred by limitation prescribed by the said bonus scheme and or due to laches on the part of the respondents 3 that under the said scheme the respondents are number entitled to bonus as they were employed as domestic servants and were during the relevant period performing domestic and personal work and 4 that the direction to pay bonus for the period prior to the dates on which these respondents were employed was in valid.
the companytention as to jurisdiction of the labour companyrt depends on the true companystruction of s. 33c 2 as it stood in 1962 when these applications were filed and before its amendment by act 36 of 1964.
janardan sharma for the respondents in all the appeals .
r. gokhale and d. n. gupta for the appellant in all the appeals .
1 1962 l.l.j.the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. these appeals by the special leave arise out of applications filed by workmen of the appellant company claiming bonus under the scheme framed by the central government under the companyl mines provident fund and bonus schemes act 46 of 1948 and railway fares and leave wages under the award of the industrial tribunal companyliery disputes which came into effect as from february 22 1954.
