Important Point
In the absence of any supporting oral evidence by workmen,a mere reliance on documents filed by them is insufficient for determining factual basis of issues involved, in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Judgment

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed to the respondent mill vide Orders dated 4th April 1977 and 19th February 1979 respectively. Both were promoted to various posts in the course of their service and appellant No.2 was put in charge of the employees canteen in the year 1991 whereas appellant No.1 given the same charge in February 1996. The appellants claimed that as they had put in overtime work for a specific number of hours each day, they were entitled to overtime wages for the said period. They repeatedly made representations to the Labour Welfare Officer and to the employers claiming payment, and though an assurance was held out to them that as a similar claim by another employee, one Jayavelu, was pending before the Labour Court, the decision in that case would also be made applicable to their case. It appears that the Labour Court, in the meanwhile, rendered its decision in favour of Jayavelu and he was Ordered to be paid his overtime wages which were in fact defrayed. Frustrated in their efforts to get the benefits given to Jayavelu, the appellants filed an application under section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the “Act”) making a claim for overtime wages. The respondent submitted its counter and took a specific plea that the appellants had not been directed to do any overtime work and as a matter of fact they had never done so. It was also pleaded that Jayavelu’s case had no similarity vis-‘-vis the case of the appellants and that proceedings under section 33 C(2) being in the nature of execution proceedings, the Labour Court could not have, under this jurisdiction, determined the rights of the parties, as was required in the present case. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents, a specific plea was also taken that the appellants were, in fact, Managers and not workmen as the salary that they were drawing was more than the limit prescribed under section 2(a) of the Act and the Labour Court for this additional reason as well, had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Labour Court in its award dated 24th May 2002 observed that only documentary evidence had been submitted by the parties and on an examination of the various documents on record, in particular the time cards produced by the appellants and the various representations made by them calling for overtime wages, held that the appellants had indeed worked overtime and were entitled to payment accordingly. The plea of the respondent Management that the appellants were, Managers and not workmen was repelled by observing that as the plea had not been taken in the written statement and only in the written submissions, it did not warrant acceptance. The Court also held that though an application under section 33 C(2) of the Act was in the nature of an execution and a determination of a claim could not be made thereunder, but as section 59 of the Factories Act 1948 provided for the payment of overtime wages and as the documents on record had proved the performance of overtime work, the behaviour of the Management was “reprehensible and was liable to be punished”, more particularly, as the award in the case of Jayavelu had become final and had not been challenged. The application was accordingly allowed. The respondent Management thereupon challenged the award in the Madras High Court. The High Court in its Judgment dated 8th December 2003, dismissed the writ petition thereby confirming the award of the Labour Court. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by way of a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court in its impugned Judgment dated 2nd March 2005, observed that the reliance of the Labour Court on documentary evidence alone, and that too in a case of claim of overtime wages, was not tenable and that it was unusual on the part of the respondents (appellants herein), being workmen not to enter the witness box to subst