PIONEER EMMBROIDERIES LTD Vs. PRITHVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ambit and scope of the provisions of section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the only question that arises for consideration of the Court in this facts and circumstances of the present appeal. A number of workmen of the Appellant company filed a Petition under section 33-C (2) of the Act before the Central government Labour Court at Silvasa claiming overtime wages for the period from 23rd August, 1998 to 29th March, 2003 approximately Rs. 2,03,768/- on assertions that they were workmen of the Company for many years and had been working on for the said period. The Appellant-Company is an establishment to which the provisions of the Factories Act and Industrial Disputes Act are applicable. Their normal working hours from 7. 00 a. m. to 7. 00 p. m. and from 7. 00 p. m. to 7. 00 a. m. , i. e. 12 hours per day. Thus, they claimed overtime wages for working four hours every day except from the holidays, and therefore, filed the Petition. They also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum per day. The claim of the Applicants was disputed by the Company. A preliminary objection was raised that the application under section 33-C (2) of the Act was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected as it was not based on any prerequisite rights. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim for overtime as the workmen must get their claim decided by appropriate forum as condition precedent for invoicing this provision, while on merits contending that the Company had continued with two tier system. The Company further contended that as a result of settlement entered into between Gujarat Rajya kamdar Sena under section 2 (p) read with section 81 of the Act and the workmen being signatory to the said settlement now cannot turn back to raise such claim contrary to the terms of the settlement. The workmen were working for 8 hours as per law and no complaint has been raised for all this time and prayed that the application be rejected.

(2.) FROM the record, it appears that vide order dated 26th September, 2006 the Labour Court had framed the following issues as regards to jurisdiction and maintainability. "1. Whether claim is maintainable ? 2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaint ?"

(3.) AFTER framing the issues, the Labour Court vide its order dated 5th december, 2006 answered partially the issues in the affirmative and while keeping the questions open, held as under :-