A railway employee is entitled to overtime only if actual hours worked exceed legal limits defined by statutory rules.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ernakulam in C.P.No.11/2015 dated 16.12.2019.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows:

The petitioner is a retired Railway employee, who retired from the post of caretaker in Railway Subordinate Guest house. The petitioner submits that he was subjected to 12 hours of duty per day and that he is entitled for overtime allowance for the work done beyond 8 hours. The said request of the petitioner to provide overtime allowance was not considered by the Railway management. Thereupon, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Ernakulam, claiming an amount of Rs.13,27,018/- towards overtime allowance, by filing Ext.P1 petition as C.P.No. 11/2015. Ext.P2 reply statement was filed by the Railway management denying the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that going by Rule 8(3) (b) & (c) of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2005'), the standard duty hours of caretakers of rest house is 48 hours plus additional duty hours of 24 hours per week. The specific case of the petitioner is that the prescribed standard duty hours are 48 hours per week plus the additional duty of 24 hours per week and that over and above the 48 hours, which are the standard duty hours, if the petitioner is made to work for any further extent of time, he is entitled for overtime allowance. Rather, the contention of the petitioner is that for every duty done in excess of 48 hours, he is entitled for overtime allowance. The petitioner submits that a similar stand was taken in Ext.P3 order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam as per the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, in P.W.A.29/1997. But the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam dismissed C.P.No.11 of 2015 as per Ext.P4 order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner was put to additional duty of 24 hours a week, over and above the fixed duty hours of 48 hours a week and therefore, he is entitled for additional service benefits in terms of money for the additional service rendered. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the additional service benefits for duty put in by the petitioner, over and above the fixed duty of 48 hours and therefore, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam has rightly rejected the claim submitted by the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel relying on the judgment inBombay Chemical Industries (M/s.) v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another [2022 KHC 6142] and Division Bench Judgment of this Court in KMJ Public School and Another v. C.M.Ance and Others [2020 (5) KHC 330] submits that the Labour Court while considering an application under Section 33C(2) has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes of entitlement or basis of claim of workmen and can only interpret award or settlement on which claim is based and without prior adjudication or recongnition of disputed claim of workmen, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen is not maintainable and for the said purpose, the petitioner has to raise an industrial dispute, which will be adjudicated by the Court on a reference.

4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

5. The speci