- (1.) Vide this order, we shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 892, 893, 894 & 793 of 2014 and Civil Writ Petitions No. 16636 to 16812, 18155 to 18180, 13677, 13685, 13717, 13725, 13730, 13735, 13742, 13743, 13744, 13748, 13752, 13866, 13868, 13870, 13874, 13912, 13960, 13962, 15021 to 15024, 15025, 15026, 15028, 15030 to 15044, 15068, 15069, 15071 to 15078, 15097, 15098, 15099, 15145, 15146, 18349, 18350, 18363 and 18410 of 2014, which were ordered to be heard with these appeals. As a similar order rendered by the labour court was assailed in all these matters, civil writ petitions that were filed first and dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.12.2013, appellant-Union Territory Chandigarh is in appeal against the said order. Rest of the civil writ petitions that were filed subsequently, were ordered to be heard with the aforesaid appeals. That is how, we are seized of 5 LPAs and 262 CWPs. Facts involved in these appeals and civil writ petitions, being similar and the question that arises for determination being common, the same are being disposed of by a common order. Facts are being culled out from LPA No. 891 of 2014. A brief narration of facts that have led the parties to the present stage would be in order. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 1947 Act'), for computation of benefit on account of difference of overtime in terms of money. It was averred that the workman was a permanent employee of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') and was employed as Conductor. As the Management is a Transport Undertaking, services of the workman were/are governed under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 Act'). Provisions of Section 26 of the 1961 Act postulates that an adult transport worker is required to work for eight hours a day and if he was to work for more than eight hours a day and on any day of rest, he shall be entitled to overtime wages at the rate of twice of his ordinary rate of wages. During the period w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009, workman was paid wages in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-6200 and the overtime allowance was also calculated and paid accordingly. The pay scale of the workman was revised in the month of July, 2009 to Rs. 5910-20200 + 2400 Grade Pay + DA and was made effective w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the workman was paid arrears of difference of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009, on the basis of revised pay scale. Further, as wages of the workman were revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the month of July, 2009 and he was being paid overtime wages w.e.f. July, 2009 as per the revised wages, he was also entitled to the difference in overtime wages on the basis of revised wages w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009. Since July, 2009, workman and the employees' Union repeatedly represented to the Management to release the difference in overtime allowance but to no avail. Similar benefits were denied to the transport workers of Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, pursuant to a revision of their wages in the year 1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Their claims under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act were accepted by the Tribunal and the Management was directed to pay the difference of overtime wages for the period 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1997. Civil Writ Petition No. 15807 of 2008, preferred by the Management- Haryana Roadways Chandigarh, was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2009 and even an appeal bearing LPA No. 858 of 2009, preferred against the said order, was also dismissed on 23.03.2011. Thus, the claim.
(2.) In response, the Management disputed the claim of the workman. It was maintained that State Government of Punjab had revised the pay scales of their employees on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, vide notification dated 27.05.2009 and the same was adopted by the Management, vide notification dated 11.06.2009. However, there was no recommendation qua revising the overtime allowance. The workman was getting overtime allowance in terms of the policy dated 17.01.2005 and, therefore, he was not entitled to difference of overtime allowance on unrevised and revised pay scales. Further, the workman had already drawn the overtime allowance for the period 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2009 and as the overtime allowance was not revised with the revision of pay, and it did not form part thereof, claim of the workman was misconceived. The overtime allowance could not be linked with the pay scale, as the same was paid on the basis of basic pay + DA. Still further, overtime allowance was not a part of pay, as defined under Rule 2.44 of CSR Volume I Part I.
(3.) By way of rejoinder, workman reiterated his claim and it was asserted that overtime wages were paid to him in terms of provisions of the 1961 Act and was linked to the wages drawn by the workman. Thus, claim of the workman qua overtime wages was his statutory right and not based on a policy decision of the Management. Overtime wages being linked with wages, as soon as there has been a revision in the wages with retrospective effect, the workman, as a natural consequence becomes entitled for re-calculation of his overtime wages.;