Judgment :- 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. 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 took the view that the order of the Labour Commissioner under S. 51 would be binding upon the labour court. Nevertheless the learned Judge considered that the claim of the workers might be based either on S.31 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, that is, for work beyond the 48 hours specified in the section, or on the basis of an agreement between the parties for the payment of overtime wages. It appears to have been submitted to the learned Judge by the learned counsel for the workmen that it was the case of the workers that at the time when the normal hours of work were increased there was an undertaking or an assurance that they would be paid overtime wages. The learned Judge thought that if this was established the workers would be entitled to the benefit of such arrangement and its monetary value could be evaluated by the labour court under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the result the learned Judge held that the labour court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.There is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Vasantha Pai for the bank (appellant) that S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would have no application to the facts of this case and it was not intended to provide for a claim such as we have in this case. But we do not think it is necessary to pronounce finally on this point because in our opinion the appeal can be disposed of on another short ground which is confined to the claim made by the respondent Jayaraman in his petition. We should not however be understood as accepting the view of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., on the point. But we do not think it is necessary to pronounce finally on this point because in our opinion the appeal can be disposed of on another short ground which is confined to the claim made by the respondent Jayaraman in his petition. We should not however be understood as accepting the view of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., on the point. A perusal of the petition filed by the respondent Jayaraman makes it abundantly clear that the claim for overtime wages was made merely on the order of the Commissioner of Labour under S.51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, in and by which he decided that the employees were entitled to the privilege of 33 1/2 hours of work per week. There is no other averment which could furnish the basis of the claim for overtime wages, like for instance, a specific contract between the workmen and the management, subsequent to the coming into force of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. With respect to the learned Judge we are unable to agree with him that the petition could be sustained on the basis of an agreement between the parties for the payment of overtime wages. Such an agreement was nowhere pleaded in the claim petition of the respondent. We may also add that it was not the case of the respondent that he had worked for more than than 48 hours and, therefore, was entitled to overtime wages under S.31 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. On the allegations contained in the petition there can be no doubt that the respondent Jayaraman was not entitled to receive any benefit as and by way of overtime wages, even assuring that S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act could be construed so widely as to include any and every claim by a workman against his employer. This is case in which prima facie and on the averments made by the petitioner himself his petition is not sustainable.The learned counsel for the contesting respondent said that he may amend his petition and make the necessary averments as regards the subsequent agreement. The fact remains, however, that no such amendment was made. We are therefore constrained to allow the appeal. The order of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., is set aside and the petition filed by the appellant bank for a writ of prohibition is allowed. The fact remains, however, that no such amendment was made. We are therefore constrained to allow the appeal. The order of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., is set aside and the petition filed by the appellant bank for a writ of prohibition is allowed. There will be a writ prohibiting the labour court, Madras, from proceeding with the petition filed by the contesting respondent Jayaraman (viz., C.P. No. 160 of 1959 on its file). This of course will not prevent the contesting respondent from making any further application such as he may be advised in the matter. No order as to costs.