Management must provide substantial evidence to disprove a worker's claim for overtime wages after the worker meets the initial burden of proof, or the claim will be upheld.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the Impugned Award dated 26th September, 2020 by which overtime wages of Rs.10,399/- have been awarded along with interest, in favour of the Respondent/Workman. The operative portion of the order is set out below:

"21. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case and the cited case law the application of the applicant- workman stands allowed. Thus the ISSUE is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management. Consequently, this AWARD is passed in favour of workman claimant Shri Yogesh Dutt Sharma S/o Late Shri Jai Pai Sharma. The management-IPGCL is directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,399/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Nine only) to the applicant Shri Yogesh Dutt Sharma S/o Late Shri Jai Pal Sharma, within 60 days, failing which the workman will be entitled to the interest on the above said amount @12% per annum from the date of this award till its realization from the management. The cost of the litigation is also awarded to the workman as provided in Section 11 (7) of the Industrial Dispute Act."

3. The case of the Petitioner, i.e., the Management of M/s. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd. (hereinafter "IPGCL"), is that there has been an unexplained delay and latches by the Workman of more than 10 years which has not been considered by the Ld. Labour Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Vats, ld. counsel for the Petitioner/Management that the initial burden of establishing overtime work and entitlement to wages/allowance of Rs.10,399/- has not been discharged by the Respondent/Workman who only relied upon a photocopy of the Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter as `DVB') register. Since the DVB itself no longer exists and has been taken over IPGCL, as one of six successor corporate entities, unless and until, the liability of the DVB was established, the Petitioner could not have been saddled with this payment of overtime wages.

4. Mr. K. Vats, ld. counsel for Petitioner/IPGCL takes the Court through the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.M. Yellati v. Assistant Executive Engineer, [(2006) 1 SCC 106] to argue that the initial burden of establishing overtime work and entitlement to wages/allowance has to be discharged, and a simple affidavit cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to discharge the said burden. He, further, submits that the document which has been produced by the Respondent/Workman is only a forged document, and could not have been considered.

5. A perusal of the Impugned Award shows that the claim was filed by the Workman on the ground that he was initially engaged in the DVB as a Technical Assistant Grade-I with effect from August, 2000 to June, 2002, having Employee No: 32034. As per the Impugned Award, the submission of the Workman was that there were overtime wages which he was entitled to, which were recorded in a particular register by the DVB, as per which Rs.10,399/- was to be paid to him.

6. The Petitioner/Management also appeared before the Ld. Labour Court. The Workman led the evidence and for this purpose, he relied upon a photocopy of the register of the DVB, wherein the details of various overtime wages have been recorded, in respect of 9 employees.

7. The impugned award also shows that, apart from the Workman who had filed his evidence by way of his own affidavit along with the copy of the DVB register, the Petitioner/Management also led its evidence through two witnesses. Both these witnesses, surprisingly, claimed to have no knowledge about the basic facts even r