Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State And Another vs Charan Singh And Another on 11 April, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No. 6937 of 2014 and connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6937 of 2014
Date of decision: 11.04.2014
Punjab State and another ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Charan Singh and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the petitioners.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present judgment shall dispose of four writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 6937, 6938, 6965 and 6974 of 2014, as common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts have been taken from CWP No. 6937 of 2014, Punjab State and another vs. Charan Singh and another.
The State is challenging order dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-
3) passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar whereby, an application filed by the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') has been allowed and a sum of `83,793/- was found due to him on account of overtime wages with 8% simple interest to be calculated from the last day of the month when over time became due. The amount was to be paid within two months from the date of order.
A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the respondent-workman filed an application stating that he was working as a Gupta Shivani 2014.04.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6937 of 2014 and connected cases 2 Conductor in the Punjab Roadways and had worked overtime on directions of General manager from January, 2005 to December, 2006. The details of the working hours were given in the Annexure appended alongwith the application. It was mentioned that the management had been giving assurances that wages for over time shall be paid but nothing had been paid to the applicant. The claim in the application was an existing right of the applicant and many other workers had been paid wages for overtime work done by them.
The State, in its defence, took the plea that the application was not maintainable as the applicant had no existing right and the claim had not been adjudicated and settled upon. The ground of delay was taken that the application had been filed in the year 2010 whereby over time wages were claimed from 01.05.2005 apart from the fact that the duty hours, month, year and route, on which the workman had performed his duty, was not mentioned in Annexure-A. On the basis of the said pleadings and after taking into consideration the statement of Amrit Pal Singh RW-1, it was held that the applicant was entitled to claim overtime wages. The Labour Court noticed that an admission had been made that no special rest had been given to the applicant in lieu of the over time and, therefore, he was entitled for the wages and accordingly, the order was passed against the management.
Counsel for the State has vehemently argued that instead of directing the payment of the amount, the workman would have been held entitled to weekly rest.
The said submission is without any basis. The work had been taken from the workman way back in the year 2005 and for 5 years, the Gupta Shivani 2014.04.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6937 of 2014 and connected cases 3 payment had been delayed. There is no denial to the claim and the entitlement of the workman in the reply. Vague plea has been taken that there were not enough details given. It was duty of the department to maintain the record that for how much time, the workman had worked overtime. The argument that there is no legal right is also without any basis. The workman had specifically alleged that similar amount had been paid to similarly situated employees. The said factum has also not been denied. Thus, the entitlement of the workman for the overtime wages cannot be rebutted now.
Reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pune Municipal Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner vs. Suryakand Pandurang Dharwad, 2002 (4) SCT 708 is without any basis. In the said case, the Court came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Court could not be there where there was absence of an existing right. It was noticed that there was a circular where the employees had agreed to work on weekly holidays and in lieu thereof, agreed to avail of alternative holidays.
In the present case, as noticed above, from the pleadings, it is clear that there was no such case set up that the entitlement of the workman was not there under the Statute. It was only on facts it was pleaded that details of overtime were not clear that the defence was set up. After taking into account the evidence which the parties led and in view of the admission made by way of the statement of the management witness itself which has come on record that the workman actually performed the work on over time basis, the relief has been granted to him. The amount having been paid to other employees thus cannot be refused to the respondent-workman. Gupta Shivani 2014.04.23 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 6937 of 2014 and connected cases 4
Even otherwise, the writ petition has been filed after a period of more than 1-1/2 years from the date when the award was passed i.e. 03.10.2012 and is not liable to be entertained.
The award is well reasoned and there is no legal infirmity which has been pointed out in the said award. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed in limine.
11.04.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani
2014.04.23 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh