THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITIN No.7404 of 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in M.P. No.46 of 1997 dated 19.01.2001. The petitioner, a watchman employed with the Sports Authority, Warangal, invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking differential wages and overtime allowance of Rs.47,046/- for the period from April, 1993 till the date of filing of the petition His case is based on the premise that the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act was not being implemented; and, as against 8 hours per day, the petitioner worked for 12 hours. In the counter-affidavit, filed before the Tribunal, the respondents contended that the petitioner worked on consolidated pay; he had earlier filed M.P. No.82 of 1994; his claim for daily wages was without basis; and he was not entitled for any amount, other than consolidated pay, much less over time wages. The Tribunal held that it is only if the petitioner was working in a scheduled employment, in respect of which a minimum rate of wages had been fixed would he be entitled for payment of minimum wages; the Districts Sports Authority, under the control of the District Collector, was not a scheduled employment under Schedule II of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; the petitioner was not entitled for minimum wages under the provisions of the Act; and he was not entitled for over time wages or over time allowance, when the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were not applicable to him. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner was working under the District Sports Authority which is not a scheduled employment, and that he had failed to place any material to show that minimum wages were fixed by the District Collector for non-scheduled employment including the Sports Authority also. The Tribunal further held that, since the petitioner was employed on consolidated pay of Rs.750/-, he was not entitled for salary by calculating the increase in daily wages as per the SSR rates notified by the District Collector for non-scheduled employments; the District Collector had never notified minimum wages as applicable to the District Sports Authority; and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the relief sought for. Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would seek to pass on copies of certain proceedings said to have been issued by the District Collector, which were not placed before the Tribunal. This Court in certiorari proceedings does not sit in appeal over orders of the Tribunal and it is wholly inappropriate for this Court to examine any documents placed for the first time before it or, for that matter, passed across the bar. It must also to be noted that proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is akin to execution proceedings and it is only if the petitioner has a pre-determined right for the claim of over time wages, or such a right flows from any statutory provision, can a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act be maintained. The petitioner relied on the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act to contend that he was so entitled. The Labour Court has recorded, as a fact, that the District Sports Authority, under the control of the District Collector, is not a scheduled employment notified under the Minimum Wages Act. It is not even the case of the petitioner before this Court that the District Sports Authority has been notified as a scheduled employment under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The order of the Tribunal, impugned in this Writ Petition, does not suffer from any illegality much less a patent error of law apparent on the face of the record necessitating interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 09.12.2010 MRKR