1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2144 OF 1996 Kashinath Shriram Rajput, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Service as Watchman of Krishi Utapanna Bazar Samati, Taloda, Dist. Dhule. ....Petitioner. Versus Krishi Utapanna Bazar Samiti, Taloda (through its Secretary), Taluka Taloda, Dist. Dhule. ....Respondent. Shri. A.G. Nagare h/f. Shri. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.P. Shah h/f. Shri. Pravin Shah, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17th June 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is preferred by the petitioner - employee, challenging the judgment and order dated 21.4.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Dhule in I.D.A. No. 20/1990, claiming the payment of overtime to the extent of Rs. 17,700/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 2. The petitioner/employee filed an application under section 33(c) 2 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming wages for the overtime work which he has performed. He claimed that he has worked overtime from 1.1.1970 to 31.8.1977 as per the statement annexed to his application and and on that basis claimed overtime wages of Rs. 17,700/-. It seems that on earlier occasion, the claim of the petitioner was allowed which was ultimately the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 2566/1980 decided on 8.3.1990 by this Court. It was held by this Court that the employer has admitted its liability to the extent of Rs. 14,852/- for the overtime work done by the petitioner. Hence, this Court had directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner, which was inclusive of interest due and payable on the said amount, which was admitted. The matter was thereafter remitted back to the Labour Court for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. 3. After remand of the matter, the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 21.4.1993, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4. Shri. Nagare, the learned counsel holding for Shri. Talhar for the petitioner has urged that the Labour Court has denied the overtime wages, only on the ground that the respondent establishment is exempted from the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the provisions of Bombay Shops and Establishment Act are not beneficial to the employee for awarding overtime wages. According to him, the 3 employer had admitted that the petitioner had worked overtime and accordingly, the statement was made before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2255/1980 that the petitioner had worked overtime. In view of this, he submits that the petitioner was entitled to balance payment of Rs. 17,700/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 5. Shri. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, supports the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court and submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has actually worked overtime in the said period. 6. After going through the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, it is apparent that there is no finding recorded as to whether the petitioner has actually worked for the period from 1.1.1970 to 31.8.1977. The statement attached to the application under section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any evidence on record to prove the statement. Leaving apart the question, whether the employee is entitled to overtime wages, even if the establishment is exempted from the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the fact remains that there is no finding in favour of employee that he has done the overtime work during the said period. Hence, the Labour Court was right in holding that there is no substance in the claim made by the complainant. No fault can be found with the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court. 4 7. In the result, there is no substance in the petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the amount which is already paid to the petitioner shall not be recovered. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp2144.96