( 1 ) THIS petition arises of the judgment and award of the learned Chief Judge, Labour Court, Rajkot passed on Recovery Application No. 1322 of 1980 on 30th April, 1984.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was in employment with the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the transport company") for more than nine years. It appears that on 1st May, 1980, the workman resigned from the service and on 23rd July, 1980, he preferred the above Recovery application No. 1322 of 1980 under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The workman claimed that every day he had worked for nearly 12 hours and he was, therefore, entitled to overtime for three hours every day. He further claimed that he had worked on all Sundays without any leave and he was entitled to a weekly-off. He, therefore, claimed wages for 468 Sundays. He also claimed wages for 63 days leave and bonus at the rate of 20 percent for S. Y. 2036. The Labour Court, under its impugned judgment and award, rejected the claim of the worman for overtime for three hours every day and the wages for 63 days leave. The Court did award a sum of Rs. 14,348. 88 ps. for 468 Sundays, the workman claimed to have worked and also the bonus as claimed by the workman. Feeling aggrieved, the transport company has preferred this petition. Learned advocate Mr. Chari has appeared for the transport company. He has submitted that the amount being nominal, he does not press his challenge to the bonus awarded to the workman and he confines his challenge to the overtime awarded to the workman for 468 Sundays that the workman alleged to have worked.

( 3 ) MR. Chari has contended that the transport company does not recognise the workmans right to receive wages for the Sundays he claims to have worked on. He has submitted that the transport company disputed the claim of overtime wages for Sundays claimed by the workman. In view of the said dispute, the workman could have raised industrial dispute. However, there being no undisputed claim or the claim adjudicated by the competent Court or the Tribunal, the Labour Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction under S. 33c (2) of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak , 1995 (1) LLJ 395. He has also contended that the workman had served for nearly ten years for the transport company and he raised the claim for wages for Sundays only after he resigned from the service, i. e. , claim made by the workman was grossly belated and could not have been entertained by the Labour Court. He has, therefore, relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Employees State Insurance corporation v. Natvarlal Amrutlal Shah, [1996 (3)] XXXVII (3) GLR 835. He has also submitted that the transport workers are governed by the Motor Transport workers Act, 1961 and under the provisions contained in S. 25 thereof, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 applies to the motor transport workers. In view of the said special enactment made for the benefit of the motor transport workers, the workman should have raised his claim before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and not under the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. D. Gupta , 1984 (2) llj 79.

( 4 ) IN reply to the contentions raised by Mr. Chari, Mr. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the workman has submitted that the scope of S. 33c (2) of the Act is wider than that of an ordinary execution proceedings. He has submitted that in the instant case, the workman being a motor transport worker under S. 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, was entitled to the double wages for overtime for which he worked and accordingly, he has claimed Rs. 30. 60 ps. for each of the Sundays that he worked. He has, therefore, submitted that