JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner employer is aggrieved by the order dated 9-10-1995 passed by the Presiding Officer of 4th Labour Court in Application I.D.A. No. 182 of 1994 filed by the respondent workman claiming overtime wages from 1-12-1988 till 31-12-1993 to the tune of Rs. 65,488/-. According to the respondent workman-applicant during his employment he was required to do overtime work for two hours every day and he was therefore entitled to get overtime wages which was not paid by the petitioner employer. The respondent workman filed the said application after his dismissal from employment. The Labour Court considered the pleadings and evidence of both the parties and allowed the application filed by the respondent workman partly to the tune of Rs. 58,840/- towards the claim of the workman for overtime wages. The Labour Court has also awarded 15% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the application till its realization.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondent workman had not done any over time work and was not entitled to any overtime wages. The petitioner also pleaded that the workman had taken a loan from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 49,300/-. The petitioner employer also sought adjustment of that amount if the overtime claim was granted by the Labour Court.

3. The Labour Court has considered the evidence and material on record and has computed the overtime wages on the basis of the said evidence. It is not possible for me to enter into the factual aspect of the evidence which has been appreciated by the Labour Court that the respondent workman had performed overtime work and that he was entitled to get overtime wages to the tune of Rs. 58,840/-. The Labour Court has appreciated the fact that for some period it was not possible that the respondent workman was required to perform any overtime work. The Labour Court has deducted that amount from the total claim of the workman. The Labour Court has further found that the petitioner did not maintain any record and that the entire burden was on the petitioner employer to have proved the fact that the respondent workman had not done any overtime and that he was not required to do overtime work. The Labour Court has accepted the evidence of the workman that he had performed overtime work. In that case the entire burden shifted on the petitioner employer to rebut the said evidence. Sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not possible for me to reappreciate the entire evidence and come to any different conclusion. The Labour Court has computed the amount of overtime to the tune of Rs. 58,840/- which the respondent workman is to be held entitled too. I do not wish to interfere with the said findings of the fact recorded by the Labour Court under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. It would however not be in the interest of justice to allow the workman the benefit of loan which he had taken from the petitioner employer to the tune of Rs. 49,300/-. Not to adjust the said amount of loan would be to encourage dishonesty that one can borrow from the employer and can refuse to pay. There is no serious dispute about the fact that the respondent workman had taken the aforesaid loan of Rs. 49,300/- for which he had also passed receipts in favour of the petitioner. It is not possible for this Court under Articles 226 and 227, the equity jurisdiction under the Constitution of India to refuse to adjust the loan amount admittedly payable by the workman and to drive the petitioner employer to file a suit for recovery of the said amount and at the same time allow the respondent to get the benefit of overtime claim granted by the Court. That would also amount to encourage multiplicity of litigation. In my opinion the petitioner employer is entitled to get the adjustment of the loan to the tune of Rs. 49,300/- from the amount of overtime claim granted by the Labour Court. While determining and computing th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document