NRIPENDRA NARAYAN SINHA Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order, contained in Memo No, 2673 dated December 2, 2004, issued by the 5th respondent, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-1, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, claim of the petitioner for payment of dues for performing overtime work has been partly rejected on the ground that there is a limitation to take overtime work for more than 50 hours in a quarter of a particular year or maximum 150 hours in the concerned financial year, as per the Board's circular.

(2.) Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to prosecute the concerned 2nd to 5th respondents for violating the provisions of Factories Act 1948, in terms with the provisions of Sections 92 and 105 of the Factories Act, 1948.

(3.) The petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Controller, Transmission Sub- Division, Jadugora, while performing the duties as such, the State Electricity Board took overtime work on different dates in between January, 1994 and December, 2001 but did not pay him the overtime dues. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had to move before this Court in WP (S) No. 127 of 2002 for a direction on the Electricity Board to pay him the amount for taking overtime work. A Bench of this Court vide order dated January 7, 2002 remitted the case to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Electricity Board, to determine the claim but decision having not been communicated, the petitioner had to prefer a contempt petition. In the contempt case being Contempt Case (C) No. 382 of 2002, the opposite parties brought to the notice of the Court a decision communicated vide Impugned Memo No. 2673 dated December 2, 2004 and having noticed the same, this Court dropped the proceeding on December 3, 2004. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner had to challenge the impugned order No. 2673 dated December 2, 2004, whereby, part prayer for payment of overtime dues has been rejected and the respondents have allowed and paid the overtime only to the extent of 50 hours per quarter.