JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

By this common order CWP-7808-2022, CWP-14439-2022 and CWP-14403-2022 are disposed of since issues involved in the captioned petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-7808-2022.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-10) whereby Labour Court has allowed application of respondent under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act').

3. The petitioner is an instrumentality of State of Punjab. The respondent during January' 1996 to February' 2006 worked with petitioner as Pump Operator. In 2007, he filed an application before Labour Court claiming that he had worked 12 hours a day whereas he was paid wages for 8 hours. He is entitled to wages for overtime. The application was filed on 13.09.2007 and wages were claimed for the period from 01.01.1996 to 28.02.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Industrial Tribunal travelling beyond its jurisdiction has allowed application of the respondent. The question of wages for overtime was purely a disputed question. The respondent was claiming that he worked 12 hours a day during 1996 to 2006 but was paid for 8 hours a day. It was surprising that workman worked for 10 years and did not raise objection qua his wages.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was short payment of wages and petitioner in terms of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was liable to pay wages for overtime. The Industrial Tribunal has calculated wages payable by petitioner, thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

6. From the pleadings and arguments of both sides, it is evident that dispute hangs around the scope and ambit of Section 33C(2) of ID Act. For the ready reference Section 33C is reproduced as below:

"33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-

(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:

Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer:

Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.

(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 presiding 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.

(3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall det