Judgment :- Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J. The principal or the only question involved in this appeal agaisnt the judgment of Veeraswami, J., is whether the claim to good attendance bonus under the terms of an arbitration award which has been made a decree of Court, can be agitated under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court or whether the remedy of the workmen in that regard will be to execute the decree. Towards the end of the year 1955 an industrial dispute arose between the workers and the management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Ltd. Ultimately there was an agreement between the parties to refer the matter to the arbitration of Sri Ramaswami Gounder who was then presiding over the industrial tribunal at Madras. He passed an award on 19 January, 1957 and a decree in terms thereof was passed on the Original Side of this Court on 12 April 1957. One of the terms of the arbitration award related to what is called perfect attendance bonus, the worker being entitled to 50 nP per month in addition to his salary, in case of perfect attendance for the first six months in a calendar year and 75 nP per month during the next half-year if perfect attendance shown not merely during the period but also during the preceding six months. If the latter condition were not satisfied, the would be entitled to bonus only at 50 nP per month for perfect attendance. In the computation of such bonus, absence for one day would be condoned if it was occasioned by medical leave or leave on the occasion of the death or other connected ceremonies of a relative. According to the management, in October 1958, at the request of the workers, a holiday was granted on condition of the latter agreeing to work on some other holiday. When however the latter day came, the appellant refused to attend. Excluding that day, there were no doubt 26 working days in the month during which the appellant attended. The management declined to pay him the 50 nP bonus for that month as the workmen had not turned up for work on the compensatory working day. This claim was sought to be enforced by the worker in an application under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court, Madras. The management declined to pay him the 50 nP bonus for that month as the workmen had not turned up for work on the compensatory working day. This claim was sought to be enforced by the worker in an application under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the labour court, Madras. The jurisdiction of that Court to decide the claim was contested by the management on the ground that the claim arising as it did under an arbitration award which had subsequently been made a decree of Court, it could not be said to arise under a settlement or award or under provisions of the Chap. V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and that, therefore, could not properly come within the terms of the section. The underlying assumption on which the objection rests is that S. 33C(2) would cover only claims, objection of the kind specified in S. 33C(1), namely, those arising out of an industrial award or settlement or under the provisions of Chap. V-A of the Act. This objection was sustained by the labour court which rejected the appellant's claim. An application under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the labour court failed before Veeraswami, J., The learned Judge held that Sub-sec. (2) of S. 33C should be read conformably to Sub-sec. (1) and that neither of them could refer to claims of the nature specified as an arbitration award. Hence the present appeal.The view taken by the learned Judge can no longer be supported having regard to the decision in Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan (P. S.) and others Their lordships of the Supreme Court, after exhaustively dealing with the scope of the section, held that Sub-sec. (2) of S. 33C was wider in scope than Sub-sec. (1). It must also be remembered that the claim under the arbitration award in the instant case related to the terms and conditions of employment and not extraneous thereto. Such a claim will undoubtedly be comprehended by S. 33C (2). The only argument against the maintainability before the labour court of the claim for good attendance bonus was that the appellant had another remedy permitted by law by way of executing the decree passed on the basis of the award. Such a claim will undoubtedly be comprehended by S. 33C (2). The only argument against the maintainability before the labour court of the claim for good attendance bonus was that the appellant had another remedy permitted by law by way of executing the decree passed on the basis of the award. In the case referred to above, it has been specifically pointed out that the rights conferred under the provisions exist in addition to any other mode of recovery which the workmen had under the law. Therefore, existence of an independent process at law for recovery of bonus cannot take away the statutory right given to the workman under S. 33C(2). This means that the view taken by the labour court cannot be sustained. But the question still remains to be decided whether this Court should exercise its discretionary power of interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and direct the labour court to proceed with the enquiry relating to a claim of 50 nP alleged to have been due to the appellant from the management some five years ago. It is one of the recognized maxims of law that Courts do not concern themselves about trifies (de minimis non curat lex). Acting on this principle Courts have frequently refused to send cases back to the trial Court whose judgments had been set aside, where the question remaining to be decided is too inconsiderable to be taken note of. In the present case there has no doubt been a genuine dispute between the management and the worker in regard to the claim of 50 nP as good attendance bonus for the month of October 1958. To investigate the matter now would involve greater trouble and hardship to the workman himself than losing the actual claim involved in the case. When the management took objection to the maintainability of the petition before the labour court, they were perhaps concerned with the question of principle being settled, namely, whether the arbitration award should be enforced through the ordinary Courts of the land, or through the agency of industrial tribunals. Equally it cannot be said of the workman that he was concerned in having that question settled so that he could be guided in future. Equally it cannot be said of the workman that he was concerned in having that question settled so that he could be guided in future. But those considerations do not apply now : we have held that it would be competent for the labour court to entertain under S. 33C(2) a claim under an arbitration award.What is left to be decided is only the consequential matter relating to payment of 50 nP. We do not consider that for the determination of that question, further time of the Courts and energies of the parties should be spent. Subject to the foregoing observations we dismiss the appeal. There will, however, be no order as to costs in any of the Courts.