Judgment : 1. Short question emerging for consideration in the above Original Petitions, all of them filed by the same petitioner, a banking company having operation in more than one State, is over the jurisdiction of Labour Court competent to entertain labour disputes in relation to that banking company falling under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for short the Act. In respect of petitioner banking company which is the appropriate Government under the aforesaid sub section of the Act, whether it is the Central Government or State Government, is the question posed for consideration to determine the competent Labour Court having jurisdiction to entertain the claim raised under Section 33C(2) of the Act. 2. Though notice was ordered to the respondents, none of them, after service, have responded. 3. Some employees of petitioner banking company have raised claims for money or benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money from the employer moving applications under section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Kannur. Petitioner banking company asserts of having operations in more than one State, and not confined to State of Kerala alone. So much, so labour dispute in relation to petitioner banking company falling under Section 33C(2) of the Act can be entertained and decided only by the Labour Court specified by the Central Government, is the case of petitioner to challenge the entertainability of the claim applications moved by its employees before the Labour Court, which have been taken on file by that court for inquiry. 4. Sub section (2) of Section 33C of the Act reads thus:- 33C. Recovery of money due from an employee— (1) ……… (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, I then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government (within a period not exceeding three months). Provided ………… (rest not required and hence omitted). Provided ………… (rest not required and hence omitted). The above section confers a valuable right and enables a workman entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money moving an application before Labour Court specified by the appropriate government, and if any question arises as to the amount of money at which such benefit should be computed, it has to be decided by that Labour Court. According to petitioner in respect of petitioner banking company appropriate government is the Central Government. Notification issued by the Central Government specifying the Labour Court, Ernakulam constituted under section 7 of the Act empowering that court to exercise the powers conferred by sub section (2) of Section 33 of the Act has been made available for my perusal by the learned counsel for petitioner. That Notification reads thus:- “S.O.1167—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby specifies the Labour Court, Ernakulam, constituted under section 7 of the said Act by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No.A-11016/3/2003-CLS-II, dated 12.2.2004 as the Labour Court which shall determine the amount at which any benefit referred to in that sub section would be computed in terms of money in relation to workmen employed in any industry in the State of Kerala and the Union Territory of Lakshdweep in respect of which the Central Government is the appropriate Government.” Labour Court constituted under section 7 of the act by the Central Government has been specified by the Central Government to decide labour disputes under section 33C (2) of the Act which fall within its ambit and jurisdiction, is spell out by above notification. The above notification has to be duly taken note of with reference to the definition of banking company given under section 2 (bb) of the Act which reads thus:- 2. The above notification has to be duly taken note of with reference to the definition of banking company given under section 2 (bb) of the Act which reads thus:- 2. Definitions—In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context— (a) …… (bb) “banking company” means a banking company as defined in section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (10 of 1949, having branches or other establishments in more than one State, and includes (the Export-Import Bank of India) (the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India, the Small industries Development Bank of India established under section 3 of the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989, the Reserve Bank of India, the State Bank of India, a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) (a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), and any subsidiary bank), as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959). The above definition spell out the banks which come within the scope of a banking company under the Act. In the context, what is the definition of banking company under Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 assumes significance as the above definition states that banking companies defined under that Act if it is having branches or other establishment in more than one State, then, it would fall within the definition of banking company under the Act. Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Act 10 of 1949) defines a banking company thus:- “5. Interpretation-(In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context— (a) …… (b) “banking company” means any company which transacts the business of banking (in India) The definition off banking company in the Banking Regulation Act take within its ambit companies which transact the business of banking in India. But such a banking company to fall within the ambit of definition under section 2 (bb) of the Act has to have branches or other establishment in more than one State. That alone is the requirement to satisfy the definition of banking company under Section 2 (bb) of the Act. But such a banking company to fall within the ambit of definition under section 2 (bb) of the Act has to have branches or other establishment in more than one State. That alone is the requirement to satisfy the definition of banking company under Section 2 (bb) of the Act. So much so in respect of banking companies falling within the definition of a banking company in the Act the Central Government is the appropriate government. With respect to other banking companies which do not fall within the definition under Section 2 (bb) of the Act the State Government in which the bank is situate would be the appropriate government. 5. Section 2 (a) of the I.D. Act defines an ‘appropriate Government’ whereunder it is stated that in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by the authority of the Central Government, it is the appropriate Government. So a labour dispute relating to a claim under sub section (2) of Section 33C of the Act with respect to a banking company, which satisfy the definition under Section 2 (bb) of the Act, its appropriate Government being the Central Government, naturally, the Labour Court constituted under section 7 of the Act by that government, which has been empowered under notification to consider and decide the claim under Section 33C (2) of the Act alone will have jurisdiction. I do take note that in the Explanation to clause (5) of Section 33C (2) of the Act under the Amendment Act 46 of 1982 it has been stated that for the purpose of the above section Labour Court includes any court constituted under any law relating to industrial disputes in force in any State. Where sub section (2) of Section 33C (2) clearly spell out that the claim raised by the workman under that sub section has to be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in that behalf by the appropriate government, the Explanation introduced under Act 46 of 1982 referred to above cannot be read as conferring jurisdiction to the Labour Court constituted by the State Government where the appropriate Government in relation to the industry in respect of which labour dispute under section 33C(2) of the Act canvassed of is the Central Government. 6. 6. In the given facts the question of jurisdiction over the claim petitions pending before the Labour Court, Kannur against petitioner banking company under section 33C (2) of the Act has to be decided by that court as a preliminary issue before proceeding any further. In case petitioner banking company is able to satisfy that it is having branches or establishment in more than one State and as such it falls within the definition of banking company under section 2 (bb) of the Act, then the Labour Court has to return the petitions for presentation before the competent court constituted by the appropriate government to decide the claim. Subject to the above direction, the Original Petitions are disposed.