Case: Pioneer Embroideries Limited Vs. Prithvi Singh &amp; Others

A number of workmen of the Appellant Company filed a Petition under Sectionof the Act before the Central Government Labour Court at Silvasa claiming overtime wages for the period from 23rd August, 1998 to 29th March, 2003 approximately Rs.2,03,768/on assertions that they were workmen of the Company for many years and had been working on for the said period. Theis an establishment to which the provisions of the Factories Act and Industrial Disputes Act are applicable. Their normal working hours from 7.00 a.m. To 7.00 p.m. and from 7.00 p.m. To 7.00 a.m., i.e. 12 hours per day. Thus, they claimed overtime wages for working four hours every day except from the holidays, and therefore, filed the Petition. They also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum per day. The claim of the Applicants was disputed by the Company. A preliminary objection was raised that the application under Sectionof the Act was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected as it was not based on anyrights. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim for overtime as the workmen must get their claim decided by appropriate forum as condition precedent for invoking this provision, while on merits contending that the Company had continued with two tier system. The Company further contended that as a result of settlement entered into between Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena under Section 2(P) read with Section 81 of the Act and the workmen being signatory to the said settlement now cannot turn back to raise such claim contrary to the terms of the settlement. The workmen were working for 8 hours as per law and no complaint has been raised for all this time and prayed that the application be rejected. 2. From the record, it appears that vide order dated 26th September, 2006 the Labour Court had framed the following issues as regards to jurisdiction and maintainability. 1. Whether claim is maintainable 2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaint 3. After framing the issues, the Labour Court vide its order dated 5th December, 2006 answered partially the issues in the affirmative and while keeping the questions open, held as under:11. Therefore, according to me unless evidence is recorded, unless parties get opportunity of hearing this court straight away cannot confirm any opinion about existence orng right in the given circumstances, and facts of the case. Therefore, according to me at this stage before recording of any evidence all the applications are maintainable and this court has jurisdiction to proceed with the matters. Therefore, I held findings of Issues No.1 and 2 is affirmatives. The point for maintainability and jurisdiction is kept open for arguments at the final stage of the matter. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Company filed Writ Petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge rejected the Petition summarily vide order dated 14th January, 2008 giving rise to filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Reasoning:
7. As is evident from the above stated principles that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not so limited or narrow so as to dismiss the application filed by the workmen at the threshold itself. Besides, if some ancillary questions are to be dealt with and/or decided by the Labour Court, determination or adjudication of a right itself may not squarely fall within the scope of these provisions. But, certainly, like in the present case, where the workmen, while relying upon the provisions of the Factories Act and even partial admission of the Company that the workmen were working 8 hours as per law and the Labour Court leaving the questions open till the parties have been given opportunity to lead evidence and prove their case and deferring the findings can hardly be faulted with. We must notice that it is not in dispute that the workmen would be entitled to receive overtime wages provided they show that they have worked in excess of 8 hours. So in other words, the right to claim overtime can hardly be a subject matter of dispute in the facts and circumstances of the present case provided the workmen establish their claim. This is not a case where the Court should accept preliminary objection to the extent of declining to exercise its jurisdiction and reject the application under Sectionof the Act at the very threshold thus shutting the doors of justice for the workmen. We are in agreement with the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the learned Single Judge could not have recorded finding as regards to the maintainability of the application particularly when the Labour Court has kept the questions open and required them to lead evidence. We are of the view that the order of the Labour Court does not suffer from error of law and is in consonance with the settled principles of Industrial Jurisprudence.