KARNATAKA TATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. NARAYAN CHIKKEGOWDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent who was a driver in the petitioner Corporation attained the age of superannuation on 30/11/1996. He filed on 25/11/2000, an application under S. 33(C-2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) in the Labour Court at Chikmagalore, to direct the payment of the arrears of overtime allowance with interest at 12% p.a. THE petitioners filed a counter and contested the claim. Enquiry having been held, a Commissioner was appointed to work out the amount payable by the management to the workman. After receipt of the commission report, finding the same to be not acceptable and arriving at the conclusion that the management has to pay to the workman Rs.42,098/-, towards overtime allowance, an order was passed directing payment of the said amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Challenging the said order, the KSRTC has filed this writ petition.

(2.) SRI B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly contended that, there was neither an award nor a settlement based on which the application was filed by the respondent/workman and hence, the application under S. 33(C-2) of the Act was not maintainable. Secondly, the case of the management has not been considered in accordance with law, inasmuch as, the employee superannuated on 30.11.1996 and the application was filed after a long delay i.e., on 25,11.2000 and hence, on the ground of delay, the application ought to have been rejected. Thirdly, there was no credible evidence based on which the Court could determine the amount payable at Rs.2,098/- and the order passed is without any lawful basis. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment dated 3.12.2000 passed in W.A. No.2748/2010 and connected appeals and also the decision reported at 2005 LLR 1191 : (2006 (2) AIR Kant HCR 606) (State of U.P. and another v. Brijpal Singh).

(3.) THERE is no dispute that, the respondent was a driver in the petitioner Corporation and hence falls within the meaning of 'workman' under S. 2(s) of the Act. The judgment passed in W.A. 2748/2010 dated 3.12.2010 was in respect of a person who was a traffic inspector and who did not fall within the meaing of 'workman' under S. 2(s) of the Act. Hence, the said judgment has no application to the case on hand.