RAMKHILWAN RAMPRASAD GUPTA Vs. MODEL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/employee has questioned the order dated 18.01.2001 passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur in I.D.A. Case No. 83/1989, rejecting the application filed by them under Section 33C2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for grant of wages at over time rate for work done by them on holidays. The petitioners had thereafter, sought review of that order vide Misc. I.D.A. No. 4/2003 and that review came to be rejected on 16.03.2005.

(2.) The applicant No. 1 before the Labour Court is no more and his legal heirs are petitioner Nos. 1[A] to 1[C]. Petitioner No. 2 is applicant No. 2 before Labour Court. Both the applicants/employees claimed that, they were entitled to more wages i.e. wages at 1 times of total wages when they worked on weekly off or on public holiday, and accordingly they were getting the said benefit till 1982 when it was suddenly discontinued. Initially they claimed amount of Rs. 20,000/and Rs. 15,000/from 1982 till their respective dates of retirement. During the pendency of the matter, they have carried out amendment and enhanced the claim to Rs. 22500/and Rs. 23,500/- respectively. The respondent employer opposed their claim by pointing out that, they were not entitled to receive any such amount at 1 times of wages for work done on weekly off day or on public holidays. The First Labour Court recorded evidence of both the applicants and of employer, and then delivered the impugned order. It found that, though the applicants established the existing right to receive the amount, they did not bring on record necessary material to enable it to compute their entitlement. It found that there was no evidence about exact number of holidays on which the applicants worked or on weekly off days on which they worked or then about the rate of wages prevalent from time to time. It therefore, found itself unable to compute the said amount. It thus dismissed their application under Section 33C2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The applicants sought review, which also came to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Shri L.K. Khamborkar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri Wachasunder, learned Counsel for respondent.