0606wp1194.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1194 OF 2011 Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union ..vs.. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V.P.Marpakwar, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 6th June, 2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/6/2010 passed by the competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act i.e. Learned Judge of the First Labour Court, Nagpur by which the combined application filed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable in view of the fact that the amount of wages claimed is more than Rs.1600/- per month. Considering the definition of ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and considering Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, the impugned order, in my view, cannot be faulted with. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that in fact the amount claimed in the application is more than Rs.1600/- per month. He, however, contends that the employees concerned were workmen. Considering the 0606wp1194.11.odt 2 nature of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the issue as to whether the concerned persons are workmen or not cannot be decided in the said proceedings as it is trite that the proceedings under Section 33C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute