R.S.A NO.2414 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A NO.2414 OF 2010 DECIDED ON : 16.07.2010 Sital Singh and others ...Appellants versus PSEB and ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate, for the parties. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is regular second appeal directed by plaintiff- appellants against the judgment dated 13.03.2010 passed by Shri G.S.Dhillon, Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ropar vide which first appeal preferred by the plaintiff- appellants against the judgment dated 07.02.2008 passed by Ms.Jitender Walia, Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib, was dismissed. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are employees of Punjab State Electricity Board and are working as Control Room Operators. The work and conduct of the plaintiffs is good and satisfactory and no complaint is pending against them. The R.S.A NO.2414 OF 2010 -2- plaintiffs have to work for a long time in the control room. Their nature of job is manual. The plaintiffs have to perform over time around 50 hours in a quarter. The plaintiffs although were doing overtime, but the defendants have stopped the payment of overtime since 01.07.2002. Earlier defendants tried to stop the payment of overtime in the month of April, 2001 but on the representation of the union, the payment was continued. The plaintiffs are entitled to overtime. On put to notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiffs are employees of the Board. The plaintiffs have not performed any manual duty. They are working as sub-station operator and control room operator. The nature of job is not manual. Punjab State, as per notification dated 03.01.2001 vide which nature of job of such like persons that of plaintiffs, has been declared as supervisory post. Moreover, their basic pay is more than Rs.9000/- per month. According to Payment of Wages Act, the employees who are drawing salary above Rs.1600/- per month, have been declared as supervisory staff and have not been entitled to overtime. The plaintiffs were wrongly paid overtime. Replication to the written statement was filed denying the contents of written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. R.S.A NO.2414 OF 2010 -3- From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ? OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for ? OPP iii) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD iv) Relief. Plaintiffs Jasbir Singh, Baldev Singh and Narinder Kumar appeared as PW-1 to PW-3 and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents. On the other hand, defendants examined Nirbhai Kaur, Superintendent Accounts as DW-1 and tendered certain documents. Learned trial Court has taken Issues No.1 and 2 together and returned the findings on both these issues against the plaintiffs. Issue No.3 was not pressed before the trial Court and as such the same was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. In view of findings on Issues No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal which was heard and decided by Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar and R.S.A NO.2414 OF 2010 -4- vide judgment dated 13.03.2010, the appeal was dismissed. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 13.03.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar and judgment dated 07.02.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib, the plaintiffs have preferred the regular second appeal. Although number of substantial questions of law have been raised by learned counsel for the appellants in para 7 of the grounds of appeal, but during the course of arguments, he has confined his arguments to the following substantial question of law : i) Whether both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs ? Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiff-appellants are doing the manual work in power house. They are not the supervisors. So, in view of notification Exhibit D-4 produced before the trial Court, the appellants are entitled to extra payment for extra work. Both the Courts below have returned wrong finding that the plaintiffs are not doing manual work. Mere fact that basic pay of the plaintiffs is more than Rs.9000/- per month cannot debar them from claiming the amount in respect of overtime. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime in compliance R.S.A NO.2414 OF 2010 -5- to the notification Exhibit D-4 on the ground that they are not doing any manual work and that their pay is more than Rs.1600/- per month. That being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants do not point out how both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence in this regard on the file. In notification Exhibit D-4, it is clearly mentioned that Junior Engineer, Power Station Operator and Sub Station Assistant do not fall within the definition of manual workers and as such, not entitled to overtime. In view of the above discussions, the substantial question of law raised during the course of arguments, stands answered against the appellants. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. JULY 16, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE