STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. BACHU MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is against the orders dated 14. 1. 75 and 22. 7. 75 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. By the earlier order, the Authority held that the application filed by the employee was maintainable. By the last order the Authority found that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs. 9357. 50 P as his overtime wages as claimed in the claim petition filed before the Authority being P. W. A. Case No. 267 of 1968.

(2.) THE petitioner claiming to be a durwan of the B. C. Roy Polio Clinic and Hospital for crippled children made an application for payment of overtime wages for various periods mentioned in the petition. Though the period of claim started from 26th November, 1958 to 7th September, 1965, the application was filed on or about l5th July, 1968. In explaining the delay in filing the application, the employee stated that he was asked to perform extra duties by the Superintendent of the Clinic and he performed his duties accordingly. Thereafter, he requested the Superintendent to grant him extra wages for his extra duty and he was assured of such payment. But later on the opposite parties, namely, the Superintendent of the Clinic as also the State of West Bengal declined to make the payment and in that situation the delay was caused. The claim was laid at Rs. 9357. 50 P.

(3.) BY an order dated 20. 11. 69, the Authority held that the application was wrote maintainable on the preliminary issue. Against the decision, the employee came up before this court in C. R. 1. 793 of 1970 and a Division Bench of this court in course of judgment noted that there was a Notification being Government Notification No. 6688 L. W. dated 30th December, 1968 (Vide Calcutta Gazette dated 12th January, 1967 Part I Page 111) whereby the Act was extended to "industrial establishments" as defined in sub-section (1) of section 2 (ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. This Court observed that the Authority in deciding the preliminary issue expressed the view that though the institution may be an industry but still it would not be an industrial establishment covered by the above statute. As this conclusion was not clear the court felt that the case should be sent back to the said Authority for a proper decision on the preliminary point of jurisdiction after giving the parties opportunities to adduce further evidence in support of their respective cases. Such additional evidence with the evidence already on record was directed to be taken into consideration in coming to a final decision on the preliminary point. The case on remand came up for consideration before the Authority again and the Authority held by the order dated 14th January, 1975 that the Polio Clinic was functioning as an industrial establishment for all practical purposes.