Bhargava, J. - (1.) These four connected appeals have been filed, by special leave, by the Town Municipal Council, Athani, and are directed against a common judgment of the High Court of Mysore in four writ petitions filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, dismissing the writ petitions. The circumstances in which these appeals have arisen may be briefly stated.
(2.) Four different applications under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act") were filed in the Labour Court, Hubli, by various workmen of the appellant. Application (LCH) No. 139 of 1965 was filed by eleven workmen on 28th July, 1965, seeking computation of their claim for overtime work for the period between lst April, 1955 and 31st December, 1957, and for work done on weekly off-days for the period between lst April, 1955 and 31st December, 1960. The amount claimed by each workman was separately indicated in the application under each head. The total claim of all the workmen was computed at Rs. 62,420.82 P. according to the workmen themselves. The second application (LCH) No. 138 of 1965 was presented by 50 workmen on 23rd July, 1965, putting forward a claim for washing allowance at Rs. 36 each from lst January, 1964 to 30th June, 1965, and cost of uniform at Rs. 40 each from lst January, 1964 to 30th June, 1965 in respect of 18 of those 50 workmen. The third application (LCH) No. 101 of 1965 was filed by one workman alone on 19th April 1965, claiming a sum of Rs. 8,910.72 P. in respect of his overtime work and compensation for work done on weekly, off-days. The fourth application (LCH) No. 140 of 1965 was filed on 26th July, 1965 by 14 workmen making a total claim of Rs. 17,302.60 P., for work done on weekly off-days during the period from lst December, 1960 to 30th June, 1965. 13 of the workmen claimed that they were entitled to payment at Rs. 1,190 each, while one workman's claim was to the extent of Rupees 1,832.60 P. The Labour Court at Hubli entertained all these applications under section 33C (2) of the Act, computed the amounts due to the various workmen who had filed the applications, and directed the appellant to make payment of the amounts found due. Thereupon, the appellant challenged the decision of the Labour Court before the High Court of Mysore by four different writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The order in Application (LCH) No. 139/1965 was challenged' in Writ Petition No. 741 of 1966, that in Application (LCH) NO. 138/1965 in Writ Petition No. 973 of 1966; that in Application (LCH) No. 101. of 1965 in Writ Petition No. 974 of 1966; and that in Application (LCH) No. 140/ 1965 in Writ Petition No. 975/1966. The principal ground for challenging the decision of the Labour Court was that all these amounts could have been claimed by the workmen by filing applications under Section 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act No. 11 of 1948:and, since that Act was a self-contained Act making provision for relief in such cases, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the general Act, viz., the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was taken away and excluded. It was further pleaded that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to deal with the claims under Section 20 .(1) of the Minimum Wages Act had become time-barred and such claims, which had become timebarred, could not be entertained by the labour Court under Section 33C (2) of the Act. Some other pleas were also taken in the writ petitions which we need not mention as they have not been raised before us. The High Court did not accept the plea put forward on behalf of the appellant and dismissed the writ petitions by a common order dated 25th August, 1967. These four appeals are directed against that common order dismissing the four writ petitions. Civil Appeals Nos. 170, 171, 172 and 173 of 1968 are directed against the order governing Writ Petitions Nos. 741/1966, 973/1966; 974/1966 and 975/1966 respectively.
(3.) In these appeals in this Court also, the principal point urged by learned counsel for the appellant was the same which was raised before the High Court in the Writ Petitions, viz., that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to deal with the claims of the workmen under Section 33C (2) of the Act was barred by the fact that the same relief could have been claimed by the workmen under S. 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act. In the course of the arguments, however, learned counsel conceded that he could not press this point in Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1968 arising out of Writ Petition No. 973 of 1966 which was directed against the order of the Labour Court in Application (LCH) No. 138 of 1965, because the claim in that application before the Labour Court was confined to washing allowance and cost of uniform which are items not governed by the Minimum Wages Act at all. His submissions have, therefore, been confined before us to the other three appeals in which the claim of the workmen was for computation of their benefit in respect of overtime work and work done on weekly off-days.;