Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting Respondents.
(2.) In view of the office report dated 25.4.2003, notice of service upon Respondent No.3 has been held sufficient.
(3.) The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 10th September, 1984, passed by Respondent No. 2, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexures-'6' to the writ petition, on the application purported to have been moved by Respondent No. 3 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has been registered by the Labour Court as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1982. A perusal of the aforesaid application will demonstrate that the workman has claimed that since he has worked over time for a period of 141 hours, therefore, the wages at the rate of double amount should be paid to him the total of which comes to 282 hours or 35 days two hours. The assertion made by the workman has been denied by the petitioner-employer. It is stated that the workman has been deprived of his fundamental right. Since the question involved is not simple execution of the order or the award or simple calculation of the wages, therefore, before filing the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the workman concerned should have approached for reference for decline of his right to reply the amount claimed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15324 of 1991 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. The State of U.P. and Ors.), decided on 8th March, 2002, which fully supports the contention of the petitioner. For the reasons disclosed in the aforesaid judgment with which I am in full agreement, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10th September, 1984 passed by the Labour Court is quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;