Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.15 seconds)
Sh. Jaspal Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2008 cites

Jeet Lal Sharma vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court - Iv & ... on 15 March, 2000

E F G H I J K L M N O P P M 11 Even the judgment relied upon by AR for workman reported as 'Jeet Lal Sharma vs. POLC-IV & Anr, 84 (2000) DLT 706, reiterates the same proposition of law that U/S 33-C (2) workman can file application only when he is entitled to receive money claimed by him and the entitlement refers to the existing rights which would be established if it has been earlier adjudicated upon and recoganised by the employer. If entitlement to receive money is in dispute application U/S 33-C (2) is not maintainable. It was further held that once employee accepts the entitlement as one of the service conditions, the application will be admissible. If the claim is based on accepted service conditions application is valid. 12 In the present case, the management has disputed the entitlement of the workman to overtime allowance. There is nothing on record placed by workman to show that as per service conditions he was entitled to receive overtime allowance. He has merely filed a copy of an office order of DDA dated 10.05.1995 which says overtime allowance will be paid to the staff who is required to perform duties for more than eight hours after obtaining prior approval for performance of extra duty from competent authority. Firstly this order is of May, 1995 whereas the workman is Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ \ Y claiming overtime allowance for period much prior to that. Secondly, it is clearly mandated that prior approval of competent authority for performance of extra duty is a condition precedent before any overtime allowance can be paid. It is not even pleaded by the workman that any prior permission of competent authority for overtime in his case was taken. The claim as prepared also totally lacks credibility. No actual dates have been specified when the workman was allegedly asked to work for overtime. He has claimed overtime allowance for every single day of year after year starting from March, 1981 to December, 1992. But the amount calculated for any particular year does not match with the overtime period claimed and salary for that year. Besides this, as per workman he was made to work overtime daily since very beginning i.e. w.e.f. March, 1981 which is the date of his joining. It means he started working overtime from March, 1981 and not prior to that. However, in his application he has claimed overtime for the full year of 1981 which is contrary to the facts pleaded by him. Further he says that he worked overtime every single day of the year during every year of his service. Still the number of hours of overtime allegedly done by him are not same for every year. The entire claim is contradictory and vague. Even the amount calculated is not ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h h e commensurate with the period claimed for any particular year.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 194 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Chajju Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 16 April, 2003

13 In the recent judgment reported as Union of India vs Kunkuben (Dead)by LRs and others (2006 LLR 494), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held Overtime Allowance cannot be claimed U/s 33-C(2) of the ID Act on the ground that the workman's entitlement to the same requires prior adjudication. 14 AR for the management has also contended that the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected being time barred. AR for workman pointed out that the workman was waiting for decision of labour court in a similar matter filed by another workman against DDA. When the claim of said workman was allowed by labour court-IV vide order dated 08.03.2004, the present application was filed by the workman. In my considered opinion pendency of another similar case in the court cannot be a ground for the claimant for not filing his own claim. Every case is decided on its own facts. In fact, the workman should have been more vigilant and motivated when his co-worker filed his case way back in 1993. Even otherwise there is no explanation as to why the present claim was filed more than two years after the said judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 120 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Through General ... vs Narayana M. And Ors. on 10 April, 2001

Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M (2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in our case for the delayed claim. Besides this, it is also expedient to note here that in the case relied upon by the workman, allowed by the other court, the management witness had admitted that the concerned workman had worked for 12 hours a day, every day during his tenure as chaukidar whereas there is no such admission in the present case. In the said case the workman had also proved in the court the copies of his attendance record but the same have not been produced or proved here.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - R J Kochar - Full Document
1