IMPORTANT POINT: Merely because additional charge is assigned, it cannot be automatically inferred, without proper, sufficient and cogent evidence, that the concerned person is required to or he shall have to perform the work related to additional charge, after office hours or after his regular duty hours.

K.M. THAKER, J.

1. In this petition, the petitioner municipality has challenged the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Recovery Application No. 8 of 1995 whereby the learned Labour Court allowed the recovery application filed by the respondent under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short) to recover his claim for alleged overtime during the period from August 1988 to March 1995 and the learned Labour Court, by allowing the said recovery application, directed the petitioner municipality to pay Rs. 5,01,122.56.

2. So far as the facts involved in present case are concerned, it has emerged from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner municipality and the learned advocate for respondent and the record of the petition that the respondent filed an application by invoking section 33C(2) of the Act and he put forward his claim for Rs. 5,01,122.56 on the ground that during the period from August 1988 to March 1995, he had worked overtime for 7 hours every day and that, therefore, he is entitled for overtime wages for 11,030 hours. The claimant-respondent claimed that rate of wages according to his previous salary was 22.71 per hour and since he had worked overtime for 11,030 hours, he was entitled for wages at double rate for 11,030 hours. He claimed that double amount of wages for 11,030 hours he was entitled to receive Rs. 5,01,122.56 towards overtime work. With such claim, the respondent herein filed recovery application which was registered as Recovery Application No. 81 of 1995.

3. The said application was opposed by the petitioner municipality who filed its reply at Exh.4. In its reply, the petitioner municipality, while denying the allegation and claim of the claimant, mentioned that the claimant was working as Internal Auditor and that for some time he was also assigned the duty and work of octroi checking which was to be performed by the claimant during his regular office hours and that the claimant was not required to or supposed to and was not made to work overtime for a single day for a single hour and the duty of octroi checking was done by the petitioner during his regular office hours and not before or after the regular office hours and that, therefore, the claim put forward by the claimant was unjustified and unsustainable.

3.1 The opponent municipality also opposed the claim of the recovery application by the claimant on the ground that the provision under Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002 (‘GCSR’ for short) are applicable to the municipality and that, therefore, the claimant would otherwise also not be entitled for any wages for so-called ‘overtime’ work. It was claimed that since service conditions of the claimant are governed by the provisions under GCSR, the claim of overtime is not maintainable and the rules/ provisions concerning overtime either under Bombay Shops Establishment Act or any other provisions would not be applicable.

3.2 The opponent municipality opposed the claim on the ground that even otherwise, the claimant was never required to work for more than 8 hours on any day during the period in question or at any other time and therefore also the claim should not be entertained.

3.3 The claim was also opposed on the ground that if the claimant’s pay scale was lower or less than the salary/pay scale of Octroi Inspector, then the claimant would have been entitled to claim 10% charge allowance, as per the rules, however, since salary/pay scale of the claimant was not lower or less than that of Octroi Inspector and since the cadre in which the petitioner was employed and the cadre of Octroi Inspector are in same pay scale, the respondent would not be entitled even for the charge allowance and therefore also the claim should not be entertained.

3.4 On such grounds, the petitioner municipality opposed the recovery application filed by the claimant, i.e. present respondent.

3.5 During the pr