Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. The Apex Court, in case of Patel Ishwarbhai Prahladbhai & Ors., reported in 1983 (1) SCC 403, has held that the tubewell operators concerned in that case were employed in scheduled employment under the local authority or authorities and the Minimum Wages Act is applicable and they were entitled to the minimum wages and other benefits under the Minimum Wages Act. In another case of Director General (Works) C.P.W.D. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) LLJ 582, challenge to the labour Court's entertaining and allowing the daily-rated employee respondents' application under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act for getting regular scale of pay was held by the Supreme Court as unsustainable for the simple reason that the appellant himself in implementation of the decision in 1986 (1) LLJ 403 (SC) : 1986 (1) SCC 639, (Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-chief, C.P.W.D.) had been paying salary to the respondents in the regular scale of pay. It could not, therefore, be urged today, that the respondents' right to receive the scale of pay should first be adjudicated by the labour Court having regard to the scope of labour Court's power in an application under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act. In the said case, case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, reported in 1995 (1) LLJ 395 (SC) has been considered. In case of Jeet Lal Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, reported in 2000 LLR 443, it has been held by the Delhi High Court as under :

29. Thus, taking into consideration the statutory provisions, objects thereof and the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court as also various other High Courts, one thing is very much clear that in the present case, the respondent-workmen have claimed over-time wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act which is a statutory pre-existing right of the respondents-workmen. Under the Minimum Wages Act, the working hours are fixed and if any workman is required to work more than prescribed working hours, then, the workman is entitled for overtime wages which is a legally vested right under the provisions of the Statute itself. It is not the case of the petitioner-Board that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are not appealable. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Paid Ishwarbhai (supra) as also the decision in case of Tubewell Operator Working in the Panchayat (supra), the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are applicable and attracted and it is held the said Act is applicable to the other Authorities being a Scheduled Employment. Therefore, taking into consideration these facts, the labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the claim of over-time wages of the respondents-workmen while exercising the powers and jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The labour Court has also power to decide and determine the incidental question if the employer has disputed the claim of the workman. Therefore, the labour Court has not committed any error while entertaining and examining the claim of over-time wages under the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act. The claim of overtime wages is not a new right which would require adjudication. On the contrary, it is a recognized, existing, contractual and statutory right based on the service conditions which can be claimed under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act against the employer.

33. I have also considered the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court cited at the Bar by Mr. Munshaw. It is true that while exercising the powers under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act, the labour Court cannot adjudicate a new right or determine a new entitlement of the workmen which would fall within the purview of Section 10(1) of the I. D. Act, 1947. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, those decisions are not applicable. Here, in the case before hand, the labour Court has not adjudicated any new right or determined any new entitlement of the workmen but has decided the right of the workmen to over-time wages under the Minimum Wages Act, which was admittedly, not a new right or entitlement but was pre-existing and statutory right and, therefore, the principles laid down in the decisions cited by Mr. Munshaw shall not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the existing right under the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder has been, on evidence found by the labour Court. The labour Court has found that the respondents workmen have worked for over-time and, therefore, the labour Court was justified in allowing the recovery applications and in doing so, the labour Court has not decided any new right. As regards delay and limitation, this Court has considered the very same question in 1998 (2) GLH 996 while relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 743 and 752. Therefore, the question of delay and limitation cannot come in the way of the respondent-workmen.