STAIDMDRHAAKNATR DsSTD21+ i 00 AI i a g 0 D g 2: Mt n 54 i e D 6 t 3 e 8 :R a . Hd 0 0: l A 1 l 3 Aby 9 K . Ny 2 A 4 TR 2 0 26:CG HC:12 8 7 5

Order on Board

1. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Civil Appeal Nos. 4,5,6,7,8 and 9/C.G.I.R. Act/A/11/2016 dated 14.09.2016, whereby, appeals preferred by the workmen were allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to make payment of arrears of salary (overtime and night halt allowance)within a period of 30 days.

2. The facts in brief are that the workmen were working with Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC). After creation of State of Chhattisgarh the services of workmen were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and they were working under Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) on various posts. Some of the workmen opted for voluntary retirement immediately after bifurcation of MPSRTC and creation of CIDC.

3. The workmen moved applications under Sections 31(3) and 108 of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1960) before the Labour Court claiming therein arrears of overtime allowance and night halt allowance for period from 1995 to 2002. They further pleaded that Rs. 1,14,833, Rs. 54,292, Rs. 118532,Rs. 53528, Rs. 91700, and Rs. 84376/- respectively have not been paid. A notice of demand was served on CIDC on 07.07.2004. In the conciliation proceedings, the officer of CIDC accepted its liability, but failed to honour his words.

4. CIDC filed reply to applications moved under Sections 31(3) of the Act of1960 and denied averments made therein. It was pleaded that liability to pay arrears of allowances relates to the period prior to 31.12.2002 and as per the notification dated 27.12.2002 liability to pay dues of employees prior to said date is of MPSRTC. It was also pleaded that the claim of the workmen is barred by limitation under the CGIR Act, 1960.

5. The learned Labour Court framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed, whereby CIDC has been directed to make payment of allowance to the workmen as under :-

6. It is informed that earlier applications under Section 31(3) of Act of 1960 were moved before the Labour Court, which were rejected vide order dated 08.04.2013. Appeals were preferred before the Industrial Court and matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication vide order dated 12.08.2013. After remand, the learned Labour Court dismissed the applications moved by the workmen on the ground of delay as well as on merits vide order dated 23.01.2016. The workmen preferred separate appeals before the Industrial Court against said awards and all the appeals have been allowed vide order dated 14.09.2016. CIDC has preferred these writ petitions against order dated 14.09.2016.

7. Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate appearing for CIDC would argue that the claim of the workmen was barred by limitation according to the provisions of Section 62 of CGIR Act, 1960. It is also argued by Mr. Majumdar that the workmen failed to demonstrate that they were entitled for overtime and night halt allowances. He would submit that the learned Industrial Court has fastened liability with CIDC, but CIDC is not liable to settle the dues of employees prior to year 2002 as per notification issued by the Central Government dated 27.12.2002, wherein the liability of the MPSRTC has been categorically defined. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. vs. G.K. Gupta and Anr., passed in WA No. 419 of 2011.

8. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate appearing for workmen would submit that notice of demand was served upon CIDC according to the provisions of Section 31 (2) of the Act of 1960. He would contend that due to inadvertence, the workmen mentioned Section 31 (3) in the application moved befor