- (1.) This order will dispose of four appeals viz. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1007 of 2014 titled as "State of Punjab and Another v. Chanchal Singh and Others", No. 1004 of 2014 titled as "State of Punjab and Another v. Charan Singh and Another", No. 1005 of 2014 titled as "State of Punjab and Another v. Charanjit Singh and Others" and No. 1006 of 2014 titled as "State of Punjab and Another v. Inderjit Singh and Others", as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. To dictate order, facts are being taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 1007 of 2014.
(2.) How the mighty State can bulldoze even admitted rights of the workmen, the present case is a glaring example of the same. There is no dispute that as per Rules, a workman is entitled to get wages for overtime work done. When the amount due was not paid, respondents No. 1 to 13 filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") claiming that directions be issued to the appellants to pay the amount due to them which had not been paid despite requests made by them. In response to the notice issued by the Industrial Tribunal at Jalandhar (In short "the Tribunal"), a very cryptic reply was filed. It was only said that the respondents-workmen are not entitled to get wages for overtime work done by them because details regarding the dates, months, years, routes and time during which they had worked overtime was not given.
(3.) It is not in dispute that in the application, the amount due was mentioned by the respondents-workmen referred to above. No objection was taken by the appellants that the respondents-workmen are not entitled to get wages for the overtime work done by them. An attempt was made to defeat their rights simply on the basis of some technicalities. AT the time when evidence was led, it was admitted by RW.1 Amrit Pal Singh (Overtime Clerk) that the following amount was due to the respondents, referred to above:- JUDGEMENT_115_LAWS(P&H)6_2014_1.html;