RANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is at the instance of workman challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 23.8.1985 passed in Misc. Case No.21 of 1982 and 21 of 1984 whereby the claim of the petitioner for overtime wages has been denied. The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 -H (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act claiming overtime wages on the pleas inter alia that the normal duty of the petitioner was six hours a day i.e. thirty six hours per week except on second Saturday. He regularly performed his duties and work and also performed overtime duties under the command of superior officers including holidays. He claimed his entitlement for wages for the overtime as per detail given along with the application filed under Section 6 -H (2) of the Act for the period between April, 1979 to November, 1980. The said application was numbered as Misc. Case No.21 of 1982. A written statement denying the claim of the petitioner was filed on the pleas inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled for overtime wages besides the plea that such a claim, if any, can be laid under the Payment of the Wages Act and not by means of the present application under Section 6 -H (2). On merit, it was submitted that overtime is not permissible as per the decision taken by the Board.

(2.) THE parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.26,479.71 as overtime wages in the Misc. Case No.21 of 1982 and more than two Lakhs of rupees in Misc. Case No.21 of 1984. The Labour Court by the impugned order has dismissed both the cases.

(3.) IN contra, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is two -fold. Firstly, such an application is not maintainable under Section 6 -H (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act which is akin to Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Elaborating the argument, he submits that, first, there should be a determination of entitlement of the workman to receive certain amount from the employer which is capable of being computed in terms of money. In the present case, since the very right of the petitioner to do overtime work is being denied, the application under Section 6 -H (2) of the Act is not maintainable and the petitioner could have raised an industrial dispute if so advised. Secondly, the Service Rules do not permit any workman to do overtime and the practice of overtime work having been completely abolished in view of the office memorandum dated 25th of January, 1979, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -1 to the counter affidavit, the petitioner, in any case, is not entitled for any dues.