IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20153 of 1999 Between: 1) A.P.Housing Board, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, 'Gruhakalpa' Mukarramjahi Road, Hyderabad. 2) A.P.Housing Board, Rep. by its Chief Engineer, 'Gruhakalpa', Mukarramjahi Colony, Hyderabad. 3) A.P.Housing Board, Rep. by its Executive Engineer (Housing), Vinayakanagar Colony, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1) The Labour Court-III, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building , 4th Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad-1. 2) Sri B.Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Gali Reddy, R/o. 2-20-157/2, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District-39. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Order passed by the 1st respondent in M.P.No.13/1997, dt.19-4-1999 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, perverse and without jurisdiction; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20153 OF 1999 ORDER : The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) challenges the order, dated 19.04.1999, passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in M.P.NO.13 of 1997. By the said order, the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, partly allowed the petition filed by B.Narsimha Reddy, the second respondent herein, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’) holding that he was entitled to single wages from 14.08.1993 to 13.08.1994 @ Rs.2,500/- per month, single wages from 14.08.1994 to 13.08.1995 @ Rs.2,700/- per month and single wages from 14.08.1995 to 31.05.1996 @ Rs.2,900/- per month excluding Sundays and public holidays throughout. The case of the second respondent before the Labour Court was that he had worked as a Work Inspector in the service of the Board and while on transfer to Medak, he looked after the Medak Sub- Divisional office works during the period 14.08.1993 to 31.05.1996. He stated that he had to discharge the duties of a pump operator, water supplier, valve operator and watch and ward, apart from his normal duties as a work inspector, during the said period. He submitted that he was forced to work from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. on all days during the period he worked at Medak. He also stated that he had to incur expenditure of nearly Rs.20,000/- towards repairs and other charges in respect of the pump, etc. from his personal funds. Accordingly, he filed the subject petition under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 and claimed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards overtime wages and Rs.41,370/- towards overtime wages for Sundays, national, festival and public holidays during the period from 14.08.1993 to 31.05.1996. He claimed interest @ 18% on the said amount. He also claimed Rs.25,000/- towards reimbursement for the expenses allegedly incurred by him for attending to the emergency works in connection with the pump, etc. The Board contested his claims and raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. On facts, the Board admitted that the second respondent was appointed as a work inspector and was transferred from Siddipet section to Medak vide proceedings dated 03.08.1993. The Board however contested his claim that he comes within the definition of ‘workman’ as set out in the Act of 1947. The Board denied that the second respondent had put in any work over and above that expected of him. It was pointed out that he never made any complaint about the alleged overtime that he had to put in or of the additional works rendered by him at Medak. The other averments made by the second respondent in this regard were also denied by the Board. The second respondent’s claim for overtime wages was denied in its entirety and it was pointed out that the second respondent in his application dated 25.02.1997, subsequent to his transfer from Medak to Nizamabad, did not raise any such claim therein. Stating so, the Board prayed for dismissal of the petition before the Labour Court. The second respondent examined himself as WW.1 before the Labour Court and marked Exs.W.1 to W.16. The Board examined one witness as MW.1 and marked Exs.M.1 and M.2. Exs.X.1 to X.16 were also marked by the Labour Court. Upon consideration of the pleadings, material and evidence before it, the Labour Court found that it had jurisdiction as the second respondent had an existing right to claim wages. On facts, the Labour Court found that the second respondent’s claim for reimbursement for the alleged expenditure incurred by him, quantified at Rs.25,000/- was untenable as there was no material on record to show that the second respondent was authorized to incur such expenditure from his personal funds. With regard to his claim for overtime wages, the Labour Court found on facts and on the basis of evidence adduced before it that the second respondent had put in overtime during the working days and rejected the plea in sofaras his claim for Sundays and public holidays was concerned. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that the second respondent was entitled to single wages quantified @ Rs.2,500/- per month from 14.08.1993 to 13.08.1994, @ Rs.2,700/- per month from 14.08.1994 to 13.08.1995 and @ Rs.2,900/- per month from 14.08.1995 to 31.05.1996 excluding Sundays and public holidays throughout. The second respondent was also held entitled to interest thereupon. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Board and Sri B.Kamalakara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. It is the contention of Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao that the Labour Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 in the present case. He also denied the entitlement of the second respondent for overtime wages on facts. Per contra, Sri B.Kamalakar Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, submitted that the Labour Court had passed an order after duly considering the material on record and that this Court’s interference therewith under Article 226 of Constitution of India was not warranted on facts and in law. Though various contentions and issues are sought to be raised during the course of arguments, it may not be necessary to embark on an adjudication on merits. The matter is found amenable to resolution on the preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the subject petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. The said Section reads as hereunder : “ Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government.” From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the entitlement of the workman to receive from the employer, money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, is a pre-requisite for exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court thereunder. It is only with regard to the quantum of the money due under such entitlement that the Labour Court would entertain an application under the above provision. In the present case, the entitlement of the second respondent to overtime wages is contested by the Board. In the light of this dispute with regard to the basic entitlement of the second respondent to claim overtime wages, it was not open to the Labour Court to entertain the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 and decide the said issue by treating the same as being on par with his entitlement to receive regular wages. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director General (Works) CPWD, Vs. Ashok Kumar and others[1], wherein the Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak[2], reiterated that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workman’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefits so adjudicated on that basis, in exercise of its power under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. The Court observed that it is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer that an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 would lie. It is thus an established proposition of law that the Labour Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, would not venture into disputed questions as to the basic entitlement for the money claimed by the workman from the management. The Court’s jurisdiction in a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, is narrow and limited; restricted only to the determination of the ‘quantum’ of money due to the workman from the employer, flowing from an established entitlement. The Labour Court therefore over stepped its jurisdiction in entertaining the subject petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 and in deciding not only the quantum of the amount due but also the very entitlement of the second respondent to overtime wages. The order of the Labour Court is therefore liable to be set aside being in excess of jurisdiction. The writ petition succeeds and the order of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, dated 19.04.1999 in M.P.No.13 of 1997 is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 27th FEBRUARY, 2009 SUR [1] 2001 LLJ 582 [2] 1995 LLJ 395