- (1.) The petitioners in these two petitions have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench dated 23.03.2012. W.P.C.T. No. 345 of 2012 arises from the judgement in Original Application No. 484 of 2007 whereas W.P.C.T. No. 346 has been filed by the applicants in Original Application No. 485 of 2007.
(2.) A neat question of law arises in these two petitions, namely, whether the Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide whether the applicants were entitled to overtime allowance which is payable to them under the Factories Act.
(3.) It appears that several orders have been passed in different applications filed before various benches of the Administrative Tribunal from the year 1998 to 2005 directing the respondents to pay overtime allowance to their employees who were on duty for more than eight hours a day for five days in a week. The Railway Board issued a circular on 9th August 2005 indicating that if a railway servant renders extra hours of duty beyond the "rostered hours" he was entitled to be paid overtime for working those extra hours. The petitioners claimed overtime allowance on the basis of the Railway Board's circular by filing applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. These applications have been dismissed by the Tribunal along with several others by a common order. The Tribunal has held that the petitioners ought to have filed applications under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 before the Labour Court instead of filing applications before the Administrative Tribunal. It has also held that the Administrative Tribunal did not have concurrent jurisdiction with the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal has observed further that since the Payment of Wages Act, 1926 provides a complete machinery for claiming overtime allowance, the petitioners could not move the Administrative Tribunal to claim such allowance. The Tribunal relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Prasad Gupta, Appellant vs. Controller Printing & Stationery, Respondent, 1996 1 SCC 69 to conclude that the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide issues relating to overtime allowance. ;