D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) The present petition has been preferred for getting over-time for the work done during the period, running from January, 1997 to March, 2001, as well as for getting the interest upon the belated payment of the provident fund.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the over-time work, since the others have also got over-time allowances. Likewise, for the belated payment of the provident fund, interest ought to be paid.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that several factual aspects are involved, before the claim of the over-time is allowed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that others are getting over-time allowance, that itself can never be a ground for extending the said benefit to the petitioner, unless the petitioner has actually worked for the concerned period and it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is not even an iota of evidence or averment in the whole memo of petitioner or in any of the annexures that the petitioner has worked for the period, running from January, 1997 to March, 2001, and otherwise also, an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is available to the petitioner. Likewise, the petitioner is also having a remedy under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.;