Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 203
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.M.KAPADIA, J.N.Bhatt
NATWARLAL AMRUTLAL SHAH - Appellant
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE SCHEME - Respondent
L.P.A. 984 of 1996
Decided On : 03/22/2001
Headnote:
Letters Patent Appeal - Clause 15 - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33c (2) - Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is as to whether the impugned order of the learned single Judge whereby the claim for an amount of made by the respondent-workman, who was working with towards overtime wages due and payable setting aside the order passed by the Court is justified or not to which our answer upon assessment and evaluation of the facts and circumstances and the principles of law is in the negative in of the workman - Appellant was appointed as watchman with respondent-E. S. I. Scheme - He made an application for the recovery of dues of overtime etc. before the Court - Recovery application was granted on against the respondent towards overtime was granted, and accordingly direction was issued to the respondent-Corporation for payment which came to be questioned by the respondent by filing Special Civil Application which came to be allowed by the learned single Judge this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent - Appellant was working as a watchman and he was working from - Respondent in its reply before the Court has in clear terms stated that the appellant-original applicant workman was engaged as a watchman who had to work from - It is an admitted fact that the appellant was working hours in a day - Held, design and desideratum of the provisions of Sec. 33c (2) of the i. D. Act, while viewed in the light of the benevolent legislation and that too in absence of any specific provision with regard to prescription of time for the recovery of amount with the help of cannot be construed to limit and circumscribe the right of the workman for the recovery of the legitimate dues payable by the master or the management concerned. In our opinion therefore rejection of the claim in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge on the ground of delay is not justified - We may make it clear that failure of the Legislature to make any provision for limitation cannot be deemed to be an accidental omission - In the facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the benign provisions of a weaker sections of the society it would be legitimate to infer that the Parliament in its wisdom has deliberately did not provide for any limitation under - Even from the different perception a workman or a person who is the beneficiary under of the I. D. Act hails from a lower strata of the society and he would not be conscious of the period of limitation for the recovery of legitimate dues - In all probabilities this may be one of the reasons - Parliament has not prescribed the period of limitation for the recovery of said dues while incorporating provision - We are inclined to take at this juncture is very much reinforced by host of decisions and pronouncements of the Court cannot resist the temptation of mentioning two decisions at this juncture - Decision rendered in Gas Company Ltd. AIR SC - Decision rendered by the Court in Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. LLJ - We have therefore no hesitation in finding that the appellant original applicant workman is entitled to the amount due and payable towards arrears of overtime by the respondent-Corporation and therefore while reversing the order of the learned single Judge, the order of the Court is required to be restored - Appeal is allowed.
( 1 ) A short, but interesting question, which has figured in this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is, as to whether the impugned order of the learned single Judge, whereby, the claim for an amount of Rs. 2,06,068. 00 made by the respondent-workman, who was working with e. S. I. Scheme, Ahmedabad, towards overtime wages due and payable, setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court, is justified or not, to which our answer, upon assessment and evaluation of the facts and circumstances and the principles of law is, in the negative, in favour of the workman, for the following reasons.
( 2 ) AT this stage, admitted aspects may be narrated so as to comprehend, fully, the merits of this Letters Patent Appeal. in Special Civil application No. 2294 of 1995 with C. A. No. 7486 of 1996.
( 3 ) THE appellant was appointed as watchman with respondent-E. S. I. Scheme, ahmedabad (hereinafter known as the Corporation ). He made an application for the recovery of dues of overtime, etc. before the Labour Court. The Recovery application No. 2082 of 1990 was granted on 16-5-1994 against the respondent. Thus, the amount of Rs, 2,06,068/- towards overtime was granted, and accordingly, direction was issued to the respondent-Corporation for payment, which came to be questioned by the respondent by filing Special Civil Application no. 2294 of 1995, which came to be allowed by the learned single Judge. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
( 4 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the appellant was working as a watchman and he was working from 8-00 p. m. to 8-00 a. m. The respondent in its reply, as at Ex. 4, before the Labour Court, has in clear terms stated that the appellant-original applicant workman was engaged as a watchman, who had to work from 8-00 p. m. to 8-00 a. m. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was working 12 hours in a day. There is, also, no dispute about the fact that the workman has to work for a period of 8 hours and any work taken by the master beyond the period of 8 hours is subject to overtime payment as per the Rules prevalent, at the relevant time.
( 5 ) THE Labour Court, considering the facts and circumstances, found the case of the appellant justified, and therefore, granted the application under Sec. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and awarded the amount towards the overtime claim made by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 2,06,068. 00 against the original claim of Rs. 2,22,009. 85 ps.
( 6 ) THE respondent being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, questioned the same before the learned single Judge, successfully, and hence, at the instance of the original applicant, this Letters Patent Appeal, before us.
( 7 ) THE appellant, original-applicant, had invoked the powers under Sec. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under :"33-C (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months, provided that where the president officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit. "
( 8 ) MAKING an application under Sec. 33c (2) of the I. D. Act, the appellant claimed the aforesaid amount towards the overtime dues which were not disputed by the other side. It appears that the learned single Judge has rejected the claim and has set aside the order of the Labour Court, mainly, on the ground of making such a claim before the Labour Court late. In other words, the
