KRISHNA BUS SERVICE (P) LTD Vs. SATVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd March, 2001 of the Labour Court III dismissing the application of the petitioner management under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 seeking review of order dated 16th October, 2000 whereby the application of the respondent/workman under Section 33C(2) was allowed holding that the respondent No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,240/- from the petitioner on account of wages from December 1999, bonus for four years, overtime wages for three years from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 1990 and overtime wages for working on national/festival holidays for three years.

(2.) The respondent had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) claiming an amount of Rs.55,580/- on account of earned wages for the month of December 1990 @ 1040/-; leave wages for four years four months @ Rs.1,040/- per month amounting to Rs.4,160/-; bonus for four years, four months @ one month's salary for each year amounting to Rs.4,160/-; overtime wages at the double rate for last three years from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 1990 @ Rs.800/- per month amounting to Rs.28,800/-; wages for national and festival holidays, 60 days salary amounting to Rs.6,240/-; expenses for contesting case of accident while on duty with Bus No.DEP 3196 @ Rs.7,000/- and legal expenses amounting to Rs.2,100/-. After considering the pleas and contentions and the evidence produced by the parties, the Labour Court, however, allowed only an amount of Rs.40,240/- to the workman for one month earned wages for December 1990 amounting to Rs.1040/-; bonus for four years at 8.33% amounting to Rs.4160/-; overtime wages at double rate for three years from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 1999 at Rs.800/- per month amounting to Rs.28,800/- and overtime wages for working on national/festal holidays for three years amounting to Rs.6,240/-. The Labour Court also held by order dated 16th October, 2000 that if the amount of Rs.40,240/- is not paid to the respondent workman within a period of three months from the date of order, the petitioner shall also be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the passing of the order.

(3.) The petitioner sought the review of the order dated 16th October, 2000 by filing an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that on 9th December, 2000, the petitioner was trying to search out some papers regarding his business and he was surprised to see that some vouchers were found regarding the bonus amount which the workman had already received from the applicant/management. The petitioner contended that the vouchers found by the petitioners are for a sum of Rs.1206/- for the year 1988 and another sum of Rs.924/- for the year 1989 and third voucher for Rs.1672/- for the 1990 respectively. Consequently, the petitioner contended that out of the claim of Rs.4,060/-, respondent workman has already received a sum of Rs.3,802/-. The petitioner also sought review of order dated 16th October, 2000 on the ground that he worked with the management in the year 1988 to December 1990 for 740 days, then he cannot claim overtime @ Rs.800/- per month for the respective period and relied on The Punjab University v. Manmohan and Ors, AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 236 to contend that the power of the Court to review is not limited to discovery of new documents after the judgment but the Court has wide discretion to do justice by granting review for any sufficient reason.