1995 Supreme(AP) 209

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA
Rajendranagar Muncipality - Appellant
Versus
B.V.Perraju - Respondent
Decided On : 04-14-95

Headnote:

The petitioner is a municipality and respondent No. 1 in each of the cases is a worker/workman 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 overtime wages for the period of claim which should be double the rate of normal wages. They were not paid such overtime 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.

Fact of the Case:

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 overtime 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.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner is a factory/industry in relation to respondent No. 1 in all the cases and respondent No. 1 is a worker/workman. The Court also held that the claim for overtime wages of respondent No. 1 in all the cases is based on the fact that they were entitled to the benefit of weekly off in addition to the holidays etc., but they were made to work on such days and that they are entitled to overtime wages in law by virtue of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 which is denied to them by the petitioner. The Court further held that such a claim is maintainable before a Labour Court under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is a factory/industry in relation to respondent No. 1 in all the cases and whether respondent No. 1 is a worker/workman. 2. Whether the 1st respondent in all the cases were entitled to the overtime wages for the period of claim. 3. Whether the scope of Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers and jurisdiction of Labour Court in a petition under the said provision.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner is a factory/industry in relation to respondent No. 1 in all the cases and respondent No. 1 is a worker/workman based on the following reasons: a. They store, pump, supply, or distribute water to satisfy human wants. b. They carry on systematic activity by co-operation between them and in the vinculam of employer and workmen. c. The workers are remunerated for their services both skilled and unskilled. d. They engage in the manufacturing process (Section 2 (k) (ii) of the Factories Act) in the premises of the petitioner as workers (Section 2 (1) of the Factories Act) for wages (Sec. 2 (h) of the Minimum Wages Act). Therefore, the petitioner is an industry (Section 2 (j) of industrial Disputes Act, 1947) and respondent No. 1 in all the cases are workmen (Section 2 (s)of the Industrial Disputes Act). 2. The Court held that the 1st respondent in all the cases were entitled to the overtime wages for the period of claim based on the following reasons: a. They were entitled to the benefit of weekly off in addition to the holidays etc., but they were made to work on such days. b. They are entitled to overtime wages in law by virtue of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 which is denied to them by the petitioner. c. Such a claim is maintainable before a Labour Court under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The Court held that the scope of Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers and jurisdiction of Labour Court in a petition under the said provision are as follows: a. Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act takes within its purview cases of workmen who claim that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. b. The Labour Court exercising powers therein, is in a position of an executing Court in execution proceedings governed by the Code of Civil procedure. c. The provision is in the nature of an executing provision and/or analogous to execution proceedings. d. The Labour Court under the provision of the Act cannot arrogate to itself the functions of adjudication of the dispute relating to the claim of the workman.

Final Decision: All the Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly with costs of respondent No. 1 in all the cases.