Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.5.1993 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour court (II), U.P. Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 99 of 1984 -Vireshwar Ghosh v. U.P.S.R.T.C., Central workshop, Kanpur. The case had been initiated on an application filed by workman Respondent No. 1 under Section 33C -(2) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming Rs. 3,227.05 as overtime wages for the period from 1.4.1983 to 30.6.1984. The Petitioner employer contended that Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any overtime wages and that Respondent No. 1 was Junior foreman and nature of his duties was supervisory and he was getting Rs. 500/ - per month as wages and Rs. 50/ - per month as additional allowance hence he was not workman as defined under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour court accepted the case of the Petitioner on the ground that for the periods prior as well as subsequent to the period for which Respondent No. 1 was claiming overtime before the Labour court the authority under payment of wages Act had granted relief to Respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 had filed one case under Section 15 of Payment of wages Act for recovery of overtime from 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983. Second similar case before the same authority was filed for the period from 1.7.1984 to 31.3.1985 (Rs. 3,200/ -).
(2.) THE Labour court held that for the period between the two also Respondent No. 1 was entitled to overtime wages. The Presiding officer, Labour court through the impugned order did not record any independent finding. It merely followed the order of the Prescribed authority under Payment of Wages Act for the period prior as well subsequent to the period which was in dispute before the Labour court. When for prior and subsequent periods matter had been raised by Respondent No. 1 under Payment of wages Act, it was not permissible for him to make a claim for overtime wages for the intervening period before the Labour court.
(3.) MOREOVER by filing claim before the authority under Payment of Wages Act for the subsequent period (1.7.1984 to 31.3.1985), it was no more open for Respondent No. 1 to claim overtime wages for the period prior to that on the principles of Order 2 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure The illustration to Order II Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure is quoted below: A lets a house to B at an yearly rent of Rs. 1,200/ -. The rent for the whole of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent due for 1906. A shall not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1907.;