- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") granting Rs. 66651/- along with 8% simple interest as money due on account of extra wages for work performed overtime. In challenge to the award, the Corporation contends that the respondent No. 1 was employed as a Driver of an Emergency Jeep in Power House, Mukerian Hydel Project, Talwara, District Hoshiarpur. He was paid the overtime from the date of his appointment in terms of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948. This was till October 1996 whereafter the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, predecessor-in-interest of the Corporation stopped paying overtime allowance.
(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioner had moved an application in 1999 under Section 33-C (2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Jalandhar which was allowed on February 08, 2005. The writ petition filed against the order of the Labour Court was dismissed by this Court on September 19, 2005. In the Special Leave Petition carried to the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench, the converted appeal was dismissed in terms of the signed order. Two separate orders were passed by the Supreme Court on July 21, 2010. One, dismissing the appeal in terms of the signed order, the other being the signed order which reads as follows:- "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. However, the question of law is kept open. We also make it clear that the impugned order of the High Court shall not operate as a precedent."
(3.) As a result, the ratio of the order of the Division Bench dated September 19, 2005 was not approved. Two issues were raised before the Division Bench of this Court. One, with respect to entitlement to overtime as granted to employees similarly situated as the workman, while the other, was grant of compensatory leave/rest days for work performed overtime. Having succeeded in the first round under Section 33-C (2) the workman returned to the Labour Court by a fresh application for computation of money due for the period November 16, 1999 to November 12, 2005 claiming arrears of overtime. It may be noted that the first application was restricted to the period 1996 to 1999. It was the case of the Corporation in defence in the Court a quo that the respondent-Driver was working in the Power House outside the factory and he was not being paid any overtime allowance since a Driver get special pay of Rs. 300/- in view of the circular letter No. 18969 dated July 14, 1997 issued by the Chief Auditor, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. It was pleaded in defence by the Corporation that the respondent was allowed compensatory rest in lieu of duty which was tabulated in detail before the Labour Court and has found its way verbatim in the order.;