The judgment established the pre-existing right of employees to overtime wages under statutory provisions and recognized the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate disputes over such entitlements.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

2. The petitioners are challenging judgment and order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned Judge Labour Court Jalgaon in IDA application No.6/2018, awarding an amount of Rs.1,60,860/- with interest at the rate of 10% from 01.11.2014 to the respondent. The respondent is the original applicant in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as Act).

3. The respondent was working as Senior Operator with the petitioner from 03.04.1979 till 31.05.2015 i.e. age of superannuation. The grievance of the respondent is that he has not been paid the over time remuneration for the period April, 2014 to October 2014 for the period of 303 hrs. He therefore claimed Rs. 1,60,860/- under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The proposal for the over time remuneration was forwarded by the petitioner no.2. But it was not considered. It is the case of the respondent that previously also he was awarded the remuneration for the overtime work. The action of the petitioners was stated to be arbitrary and against the Factories Act and the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. The claim is contested by the petitioners contending that the respondent is not entitled for the overtime payment. There is a ceiling of 75 hours for three months as stipulated by Circular dated 26.06.2000. From time to time, the instructions have been issued to the Sub-ordinate Officers not to forward the proposals of claims which are contrary to the Circular. The claim of the respondent was disputed and therefore it was not within purview of Section 33C(2) of the Act.

5. The learned Judge of the Labour Court considered the documentary evidence and oral evidence led before her. It is held that previously the respondent was awarded the overtime remuneration from July 2008 to September 2008 which was exceeding 75 hours. Despite the Circular 26.06.2000, the selfsame respondent was awarded overtime wages exceeding 75 hrs. No alternate arrangements have been made by the petitioners and extracted the services of the respondent, therefore petitioners were held to be liable to pay the remuneration.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no legal right or the vested right of the respondent to claim overtime wages contrary to the provision of the Circular dated 26.06.2000. The respondent’s claim is exceeding the ceiling of 75 hrs. quarterly. The petitioners have disputed actually rendering of overtime work.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that just because on previous occasion he was awarded payment for 88 hrs. cannot operate as a promissory estoppel. The respondent can have no legitimate expectation to claim overtime wages. He would further submit that already there was a policy operating in the field and the instructions were issued to the Sub-ordinate Officers not to forward the proposals. Despite that proposal was forwarded which is illegal and arbitrary. The impugned order is without jurisdiction considering provisions of the Second Schedule of the Act.

8. It is submitted that in the absence of any adjudication of entitlement of the respondent, Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award disputed claim. The Labour Court arrogated to itself the jurisdiction of adjudication on the purported right of the respondent and computing the benefits. It is further submitted that the overtime dues ought to have been decided by the Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act and under Section 10 of the Act.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments :

(i) P.K. Maitra and Others Vs. Board of Trustees of Calcutta Port Trust and Others

(ii) Bombay Chemicals Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr. (2022)5 SCC 629

(iii) Rai Bahadur Narainsingh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Mangey Ram, (2019) 9 SCC 365

(iv) Nagar Council Rajpura Vs. Tajinder Singh & Ors., (2012)12 SCC 273.

(v) State o