The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate pre-determined claims and the inapplicability of res judicata when another remedy has been availed.

PRAKASH TATIA, J, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/09/1993, copy of which is placed on record as annexure 6 by which the Labour Court allowed the application under Section 33-C (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I. D. Act) filed by the non-petitioner No. 1 claiming over-time wages from 1/01/197 1/12/1980 amounting to Rs. 51,444/ -.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner employee agitated his claim for overtime by filing application under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and ultimately rights were determined when the writ Petition No. 934/1982 was filed by the petitioner against the order of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act dated August 21, 1981. This Court while deciding Writ petition No. 934/198 2/03/1983 held as under:"it is directed that, (i) the Fire Brigade employees are entitled to overtime wages and the authority has jurisdiction to determine the overtime wages at the overtime rates and that the hard duty allowance which is said to have been paid in pursuance of the Notification Annexure-3 dated 2/12/1972 cannot be said to be the payment of the overtime wages under the Act; (ii) that the determination of the amount relating to overtime wages compensation etc. cannot be sustained for, no enquiry in accordance with Section 20 (3)of the Act was held. The Authority should determine the amount for the overtime wages in respect of the days on which non-petitioner No. 1 has worked overtime for four hours falling within the period of six months preceding the date of the presentation of the claims. The result is that the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The order annexure-4 dated 21/08/1981 of the authority in regard to the determination of the quantified amount is quashed and set aside. The Authority shall hold enquiry and make a fresh order in regard to the amount payable to non- petitioner No. 1 on the claim filed under Section 20 (2) of the Act in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of the writ petition. "

( 3 ) IT is an admitted fact that after the decision of this Court dated 15/03/1982, the amount was determined by the authority concerned and amount was paid to the non-petitioner but this amount was for the period starting prior to six months of filing of the claim petition by the employee before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. These facts are not in dispute by both the 5 parties.

( 4 ) THE non-petitioner employee submitted an application under Section 33-C (2) of the i. D. Act claiming the overtime wages starting ofrom 1/01/197 1/12/1980. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the claim petition under Section 33-C (2) of the i. D. Act was not maintainable because of the reason that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of fact and entitlement of the claim of the employee. The authority dealing with the application under section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 has only jurisdiction to adjudicate the pre-determined claim of the parties.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another 1995 (1) scc 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim petition of the non-petitioner employee is barred by principles of res judicata. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Honble supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 1132 and also relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in 1999 (1) WLC 545 and AIR 1974 sc 1604 to submit that once a party approaches 5 the Court and it could have raised plea and failed to raise the plea, then the principles of res judicata applies. According to learned