( 1 ) IS Special Civil Application is directed against an order dated 16-5-1994 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Recovery Application no. 2082 of 1990 whereby the claim of the present respondent Natvarlal Amrutlal shah was allowed with the direction to the E. S. I. Corporation to pay a sum of rs. 2,06,068/- to him as overtime duties for the period from July 1973 to 7-8- 1986 in respect of which the recovery application was filed on 17-8-1990.

( 2 ) ON 30-3-1995 while issuing the Rule in this matter ad-interim relief in terms of para 12 (C) (1) was granted by the Court on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2,06,068. 00 as directed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in this Court within six weeks.

( 3 ) CIVIL Application No. 2534 of 1995 has been moved by the present respondent on 26-9-1995 for vacating ad-interim relief and for direction to withdraw the amount deposited by the E. S. I. Corporation in pursuance of the order dated 30-3-1995 as aforesaid. When the matter came up before the Court on 20-3-1996, it was submitted by Mr. Mishra that other identical matters had already been decided by this Court and it was submitted by Mr. Shastri appearing on behalf of the respondent that this matter was little different than the matters which have already been decided. Thereupon, on the request of both the sides the main matter was fixed to be finally heard on 26-3-1996. Thereafter, the matter came up before the Court on 22-4- 1996 and Mr. T. R. Mishra submitted that this matter was exactly identical to the matters already decided by this Court by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application no. 10323 of 1993 decided on 30-11-1993, Special Civil Application No. 9427 of 1993 decided by the Division Bench on 6-10-1993 and Special Civil Application no. 2962 of 1991 decided by the Division Bench on 30-4-1991. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner, i. e. , Director, E. S. I. Scheme that all these orders have been passed by the Division Bench of this Court prior to the supreme Courts decision rendered in 1995 (1) SCC 235 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr.) and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner only such claims could be entertained under Sec. 33-C (2) which had already been adjudicated or which were recognised by the employer. According to Mr. Bambhania the claim of the respondent which has been allowed by the Labour Court was neither an adjudicated claim nor it was recognised by the employer and therefore, the claim of the respondent should not have been entertained by the Labour Court in the proceedings under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 4 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present Special Civil Application by the Director, E. S. I. Scheme are as under : (i) The respondent was appointed as watchman under Bombay Civil Service rules as Government Servant on 1-9-1969. (ii) On 17-8-1990 an application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act was filed by the respondent before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad being Recovery Application no. 2082 of 1990 claiming overtime dues for the period from July, 1973 to 7-8-1986 on the ground that the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, Shops and Establishment act, and Industrial Disputes Act were applicable and the respondent had worked overtime during this period and was, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,22,009. 85 Ps. as overtime dues from July, 1973 to 7-8-1986. (iii) Before the Labour Court, the present petitioner E. S. I. Corporation, appearing as opponent contested the claim of the present respondent stating that he had of course served as watchman from 1-9-1969 in the pay scale of Rs. 196-232 which at present was Rs. 750-940; he had served at Cambay from 1-9-1969 onwards and from 13-4-1985 to 7-8-1986 at D-1 Petlad and at present he was working at cambay; that the respondent was in permanent employment as watchman from 1- 9-1969 and further that he had to work fr