IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19532 of 2003(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TRICHUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALATHUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,ALATHUR. BY ADV. SRI. C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- C.J.ISSAC, HEAD OPERATOR, F.M.SECTION, ALATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.5932/2003 IN WPC.NO.19532/2003 A DISMISSED 17/02/2011 SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN,JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF CLAIM PETITION C.P.NO.26/1995 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DTD. 24/08/95. P2: COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN THE ABOVE CASE DTD. NIL. P3: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER (REJOINDER) DTD. 22/2/97 ..DO..DO... P4: COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES TO THE REJOINDER DTD. 8/11/1997. P5: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 30/09/2002 BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19532 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the respondents in C.P No.26 of 1995 of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. They have filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 30.9.2002 in C.P.No.26 of 1995. The order has been passed by the Labour Court in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. The respondent had filed the claim petition seeking appropriate orders for the grant of extra wages for overtime work done by him. The respondent is an employee of the Kerala Water Authority, working as a Head Operator. The working Hours of the respondent is 8 hours a day. According to him he was entitled to get extra wages for the overtime work, at the rate of 1 ½ times the ordinary rate of wages. The respondent was directed to work on public holidays and weekly rest days and also to do overtime. But, no wages were given for the work done on those days. Therefore, he made several representations requesting for payment of wages for the extra work done. The respondent also produced a statement showing the details of work done by him on W.P.(C).No.19532 of 2003 2 public holidays and weekly rest days the period from 21.9.1991 to 5.6.1995. According to the respondent a total amount of ` 44,239/- was due to him. Therefore, he prayed for an order directing payment of the said amount together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. The claim was contested by the petitioners who filed objections. According to the petitioners, the dispute involved is not a matter coming within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Kerala Water Authority being a statutory corporation was not an “industry” as defined under the Act. The Government have also issued orders to the effect that the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable to the employees of the Kerala Water Authority. It was contended that the respondent was a permanent employee of the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 1.4.1984. The service conditions of the regular employees of the Kerala Water Authority are governed by the Kerala Service Rules ('the KSR' for short). Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. A true copy of the said objections is Ext.P2. 4. The respondent filed a rejoinder as Ext.P2 contending that the Kerala Water Authority is an industry as defined under the Act and therefore, the proceedings were perfectly maintainable. It W.P.(C).No.19532 of 2003 3 was contended that the respondents had done overtime work on several days, details of which were available in the log book maintained in the pump house where he was working. Overtime work was done as per the directions of the Assistant Engineer, Alathur and the same would be revealed from the log book maintained in the pump house. He also brought to the notice of the Labour Court that an amount of ` 10,138/- was paid to him towards the claim for overtime raised by him after 1½ years of filing the present application. The said rejoinder is marked as Ext.P3. The petitioners filed an additional statement refuting the contentions in the rejoinder filed by the respondent. The said additional statement is Ext.P4. 5. On the above pleadings C.P.26 of 1995 was tried by the Labour Court. The respondent examined himself as PW1. The petitioners examined one Sri. Unnikrishnan as RW1 and marked Exts.R1 to R4 documents. On the above evidence, the Labour Court considered the claim of the respondent. The Court found that the claim of the respondent was well founded and allowed the same granting a total amount of ` 34,101/- as overtime wages after giving credit for the amount of ` 10,138/- already paid by the petitioners. The said order is under challenge in this writ W.P.(C).No.19532 of 2003 4 petition. 6. According to Shri.C.Unnikrishnan, the counsel for the petitioner, the Kerala Water Authority being a statutory authority its employees are governed by the provisions of the KSR. Since their service conditions are governed by the KSR, it is contended that the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act are not applicable to them. They are bound to work in accordance with their service conditions. Since the above contentions regarding the maintainability of the claim before the Labour Court was not considered, it is contended that Ext.P5 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the amount claimed by the respondent is excessive and, therefore, the Labour Court erred in allowing the same in full. 7. I have heard the counsel at length. I have also perused the records of the case and have given anxious consideration to the contentions advanced. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent had worked overtime, that he had worked on holidays and also on weekly rest days, in accordance with directions of his superiors. He was working as the Head Operator at the pump house under the petitioners. The nature of his duty was to attend to the pumping W.P.(C).No.19532 of 2003 5 operations during holidays and rest days. As rightly noticed by the Labour Court in Ext.P5 an amount of ` 10,138/- has admittedly been paid by the petitioners towards the claim made by him before the Labour Court. According to the petitioner, as per the log book it was found that the petitioner had worked during holidays and weekly rest days and, therefore, he was paid additional wages at the rate of ` 50/-. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for additional wages for the work done. As per Ext.R1 letter dated 18.3.1986, it has been directed that the overtime wages be limited to 1½ wages and that in the case of overtime, equitable distribution among the staff should be ensured. As rightly held by the Labour Court the above letter clearly shows that overtime wages was to be limited to 1 ½ normal wages. EXT.R2 is the copy of a letter dated 17.7.1986 which reveals that extra duty allowances given to N.M.R operators are to be given to various operators like the respondents also. Exts.R1 to R3 have been relied on by Labour Court to find that the petitioner is entitled to receive overtime wages for the duty done on overtime and weekly rest days. Since the entitlement of the respondent has been established by the documents referred to relied upon by the Labour Court, the order grating overtime W.P.(C).No.19532 of 2003 6 wages of the petitioner is perfectly justified. Coupled with that fact, it is to be noted that, an amount of ` 10,138/- has already been paid by the petitioners towards the respondent's claim. There can be no doubt that the petitioner was entitled to receive overtime wages as claimed. I do not find any infirmity in the order granting the said relief to the respondent. 9. Though the petitioners have a contention that the provisions of KSR are applicable to the respondent and that the provisions of the Industrial dispute Act are not applicable, no documents are produced to prove the said fact. I notice that no document had been produced by the petitioners before the Labour Court also. Therefore, the Labour Court was right in rejecting the said contention also. For the forgoing reasons I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court in C.P No.26 of 1995 evidenced herein by Ext.P5. This writ petition is in the above circumstances dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mns