SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, CPWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this appeal pertains to the correctness of the judgment dated 25.11.2002, of a learned Single Judge of this Court, by which W.P. 5743/2001 was rejected. The appeal was received by this Bench today; with consent of counsel for parties, it was finally heard.

(2.) THE facts are that the present appellants ­ eight in number ­ claimed to have worked as Pump Operators in the establishment of the respondent organization ­ Central Public Works Department (CPWD). It was alleged that they were "Work -Charged" employees. They preferred a claim on 23.04.2001, alleging that the respondent establishment had not paid them the applicable overtime wages, in accordance with the Notification issued by the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ("the Act"). The claim further stated that the amount payable was Rs. 3,44,706/ -. A list was attached to the claim petition, detailing the period and the amount payable. In short, the claim pertained to the period November 1998 to October 2000. The respondents, in their reply, denied liability. At the outset, it was averred that:

(3.) SH . R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellants urges that the impugned judgment requires to be set -aside because it is premised on the applicability of the judgment in Municipal Council, Hatta (supra), which in turn had apparently overlooked a previous three -Judges ruling in Y.A. Mamarde and Nine Ors. and Ghanshyam and Eight Ors. v. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act (Small Causes Court) Nagpur and Anr. AIR1972 SC 1721. Particular reliance is placed on the following observations in Y.A. Mamarde and Nine Ors. (supra) judgment: