1 W.P.NO.2629.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2629 OF 2010 Pandurang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Prabhakar Keru Khatake ... Respondent Mr.Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. Mr.Neel Helekar i/b. Mrs. A.N. Helekar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 26TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dated 14.8.2009. By this order, the Labour Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent workman and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.13,191/- as wages for the overtime completed by him along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.6.2005 till the actual payment of the amount. 2. The claim for overtime was filed by the workman in view of the letter issued on 30.6.2005 by the petitioner when 2 W.P.NO.2629.10 he was to retire. This letter indicate that the workman had completed 644 hours of overtime from the period 2001-2002 to 2004-2005. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted, (i) that the overtime wages cannot be claimed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short, “I.D.Act”) since the workman was employed in an industry covered by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (in short, “B.I.R. Act”); (ii) that there was no adjudication of whether overtime wages are payable to the workman; (iii) that the workman was directed to adjust the overtime against his leave; (iv) that the Labour Court has erred in not following the judgments of the superior Courts indicating that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act is that of an Executing Court. 4. Mr.Helekar points out that the aforesaid letter directing him to adjust the work till September, 2005 against the overtime wages to which the workman was entitled, was issued on 30.6.2005 and, therefore, obviously the workman could not have complied with the request contained therein. In any event he submits that the petitioner itself has indicated that the workman is entitled to overtime of 644 3 W.P.NO.2629.10 hours during the aforesaid period and, therefore, he is entitled to the amount awarded by the Labour Court. 5. In my view, the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner are unsustainable. It is now well settled that if a workman is entitled to certain benefits which can be computed in terms of money, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such an application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act. Although the workman may have been working in an establishment which is governed by the B.I.R. Act, there is no provision under that Act for recovery of monies due and payable and, therefore, obviously the workman would have to file an application under Section 33- C(2) of the I.D. Act. The right of the workman to receive the benefit and also the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is disputed by the employer. In my view, the Labour Court has committed no error in deciding the application. The direction to the employer to pay Rs.37,191/- as the overtime wages is not perverse. 6. However, the Labour Court has erred in granting interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30.6.2005 onwards. In my view, therefore, the interest will be payable only from the date of the order i.e. from 14.8.2009 and not 4 W.P.NO.2629.10 prior to that. It is now well settled that the Labour Court acting under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act is not empowered to grant interest on the amount computed as due and payable to the workman. 7. Writ petition rejected. .....