RAJENDRANAGAR MUNICIPALITY Vs. B V PERRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common Award of Respondent No.2, the III Labour Court, Hyderabad (Sri Syed Abdullah) dated 18-8-1993 passed in M.P. Nos.179,173,176,175,172 and 174 of 1992 in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner is the subject and object of assail in all the writ petitions. The petitioner and respondentNo.2 are common in all the writ petitions. The six writ petitions with common questions comprise for disposal in this comment judgment. The petitioner is Rajendranagar Municipallty. Respondent No.1 in each of the cases claiming to be a worker/workman of the petitioner, laid a claim for recovery of over-time allowance under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was resisted by the petitioner, but allowed in the Award. The relevant particulars of the parties, the claim etc., are tabulated hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_320_ALT2_1995Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) Respondent No.1 in each of the cases claimed that petitioner is a factory and industry and they are the workers/worken for the purpose of operation of the Factories Act, Payment of Wages Act, Industrial Disputes Act and other Legislations concerning such persons. They Were entitled for one day rest in a week with the benefit of wages. They worked on weekly off days, Sundays and holidays during the period of claim. They were entitled to over-time wages for the period of claim which should be double the rate of normal wages. They were not paid such over-time wages and therefore, they wanted the same to be paid to them by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) The petitioner denied that such persons were workers/workmen for the purpose of such Legislations. On the other hand, they are like the Government servants who are given all the benefits in such capacity like salary, leave etc. It was also denied that they were entitled to over-time wages for the period of claim. It was contended that respondent No.2 Labour Court had no jurisdiction to allow the claim of respondent No. 1 in all the cases under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act since the scope of enquiry under the provision was limited. It was further contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the claim and decide it as it was neither adjudicated nor recognised by the petitioner and on the other hand, it was disputed throughout. The claim was said to be barred by limitation. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after holding an enquiry into the controversies came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 in the cases was entitled to the claim and accordingly allowed the same by rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner.