STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SAVAILAL H SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, R and B Division, Ahmedabad, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and challenged legality of judgment and order dated 30/09/1992, rendered by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Recovery Application No. 1292 of 1986, by which the application submitted by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short) is accepted by the Labour Court, and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 99,736.54 ps. to the respondent being the amount of overtime wages as contemplated by Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(2.) The facts, as they emerge from the record of the case, may be briefly stated : The respondent was employed as a Clerk in Public Works Department, R and B Division, Ahmedabad on January 1, 1953, in the pay-scale of Rs. 130-240. He retired from service with effect from 31/03/1986, and the last pay drawn by him was Rs.485.00 per month in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-500. The total salary paid to the respondent at the time of his retirement from service was Rs.1470.15 ps. The respondent filed Recovery Application No. 1292 of 1986 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad under Section 33-C(2) of the Act stating inter-alia that though he was liable to work for 48 hours in a week, he had worked for 56 hours in a week from 1/01/1953 till February 28, 1986. According to him, he was entitled to overtime wages in terms of Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and prayed the Labour Court to direct the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 99,736.54 ps. to him.

(3.) On service of notice, a reply was filed by the petitioner stating inter-alia that the respondent was a permanent Class-III employee of the State of Gujarat working as a Clerk, and as his service conditions were governed by the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 made under Article 309 of the Constitution, he was not entitled to the overtime wages as claimed by him. It was also pleaded that the benefit under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was not available to the respondent, as he was receiving wages under relevant Rules, which were much more than the minimum wages prescribed under the said Act. On the above referred to grounds and others pleaded in the written statement, the petitioner had requested the Labour Court to dismiss the Recovery Application filed by the respondent.