JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07^th October, 2026

1. The Petitioner is the Opposite Party/Management in C.P.No.32/2019 filed by the Respondent No.2/Workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ID Act’), on the files of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P22 Order allowing the Claim Petition filed by the Respondent No.2, declaring that the Respondent No.2 is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.3,58,782/- from the Petitioner towards arrears of overtime wages and directing payment of the same within three months from the date of Ext.P22 Order, failing which interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum is ordered from the date of the Claim Petition (25.06.2019).

2. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. K.A. Hazan, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, Sri. Manu Govind.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to consider the claim of the Respondent No.2 towards arrears of overtime wages as the Petitioner had disputed the entitlement of the Respondent No.2 for overtime wages. The Petitioner has specifically denied the claim of the Respondent No.2 that he had worked overtime in the establishment of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 claimed overtime wages for a period of nearly six years on the allegation that he worked overtime for twelve hours without any break. The Labour Court granted overtime wages even without excluding regular holidays and the festival holidays. The fixation of wages is also without any basis. The learned Counsel cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another [(1995) 1 SCC 235], in which it is held that the jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act is like that of an executing court; that without a prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen to be paid at the same rate as the regular employees, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages claimed by them on that basis is not maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act; and that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate the dispute of entitlement or the basis of claim of the workmen. The learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in KMJ Public School v. Ance [2020 (5) KLT 609] in which this Court held that when the disputed question is whether the workmen were the full-time regular employees or were working only for a few hours, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate on such issues under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act. The learned Counsel cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh and Others [AIR 2000 SC 3026] to substantiate the point that no amount of evidence can cure the defect in the pleadings. The learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in D+H Solutions India Private Limited v. Jayakrishnan Ramachandran Nair [2026 (2) KHC 51] in which this Court held that a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act cannot be filed without prior independent adjudication of the claim by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as proceedings under this provision are execution like in nature and require pre-existing adjudicated rights or employer recognition of entitlement. The learned Counsel cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya [2003 (7) SLR 458] in which the Gujarat High Court set aside the Order of the Labour Court allowing the claim for overtime wages on the ground that there is no adjudication by a competent court or authority when the claim was not admitted by the Management. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments praying to set aside Ext.P22 Order and to dismiss the Claim Petition filed by the Respondent No.2 before the Labour Court finding that the claim is not maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.

4. On the other hand, the learned Cou