The entitlement to overtime wages is established based on prior sanction and does not necessitate fresh adjudication under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Labor Court, Latur in Application ( IDA ) No. 41/2012 allowing the employees’ application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which the Labor Court has awarded an amount of Rs.1,89,000/-, Rs.2,60,000/- and Rs.1,63,080/- respectively to the respondents herein towards the claim for overtime wages together with 12% interest.

3. The facts leading to the instant petition are succinctly put as under :

i. The respondents who are the original applicants, had worked on the post of Artisan A and filed proceedings under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , against the petitioners (MSEDCL Company).

ii. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had retired on 30.06.2012 and respondent No.3 had retired on 31.08.2011.

iii. The respondents preferred an application (IDA) No.41/2012 claiming total amount of Rs.6,12,900/- along with 18% interest towards the claim for overtime wages from March 2010 till the respective dates of their retirement. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have claimed that they became entitled for overtime work for 540 hours and respondent No.3 claimed overtime work for 360 hours and accordingly raised respective claims of Rs.1,89,000/-, Rs.2,60,000/- and Rs.1,63,080/- as unpaid amount of overtime wages. The respondents have claimed that earlier they were paid with overtime wages at the same rate and there was no dispute about their entitlement and the only issue remained was about the payment of the dues which was sought to be executed through application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

iv. The respondents appeared and submitted their written statement denying the claim of the employees. The primary contention of respondents was about maintainability of application under Section 33 (C)(2) alleging that there was no pre-existing right and the entitlement of the respondents was in dispute. The respondents also opposed the application by stating that the post of the respondents viz. Artisan-A was not included in ‘line staff workers’ and the employees were not entitled to seek benefit of the circular dated 26.06.2000 on which their claim was based.

v. The parties laid evidence in support of their claim. The employees inter alia relied on the documents demonstrating grant of sanction to their overtime wages.

vi. By judgment and order dated 30.06.2017, the Judge, Labor Court allowed the application of the employees declaring thereby that the employees have got an existing right and that they are entitled to receive the lump sum amounts towards their claim for overtime wages together with 12% interest thereon from March 2010 till the date of their retirement.

vii. The petitioners have challenged this order by way of instant petition.

4. Advocate U. S. Malte, learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions to contend that the impugned judgment and order is grossly illegal being passed in absence of any pre-existing right in favour of the employees. His primary contention is that the circular dated 26.06.2000 is not at all applicable to the respondents and the claim for overtime wages was never adjudicated. He vehemently submitted that there is ceiling of 75 hours for three months as stipulated by circular dated 26.06.2000 and accordingly instructions have been issued to subordinate officers of MSEDCL not to forward the proposals of claims which run contrary to th