Kishan Chand Saini (Since Deceased)Thro Lrs v. Union of India & Anr

G.S.SISTANI, J. OCTOBER/ii^ , 2018 //gr

$-31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement Reserved on:31^' August, 2018 Judgement pronounced on:jV^October, 2018 + KISHAN CHAND SAINI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ....Appellants Through Mr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA&ANR. ,, ^ ' ..ilespondents Through Mr. -Jaait Singh^^^ Mr. Preet "Singh, Advocates. ' . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S:SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTlGE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAT . .T 1. Challenge in this appeal" filed^under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act is to the order d^d;0.106.2018.passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ pethion-Eled by the respondents against the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Governmentllhdu^|pl; Court(hereinafier referred to as 'POCGIT') directing the respondents to.pay overtime wages to the workman , for the period from 21.08.1977 to. 11.12.1995 within three months failing which the management was liable to pay interest @ 9%. 2. The brief facts as per the appellant leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Kishan Chand Saini/deceased workman was working as Gateman at Gate No. 60B under Station Superintendent, Railway Station Rohtak with effect from 21.08.1977. The workman was working for 12 hours in a day at the Gate with one break in a week. On 11.12.1995 he was transferred to Gate No. 58B, where he worked for 8 hours in a day. He claimed 4 hours overtime wages, during the period between 21.08.1977 to 11.12.1995, for the work done at the Gate No. 60B. He filed an application under|Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafler referred to as 'the ID Act') before PQCGIT claimin'g-Rs. 5:;01:^886/- as overtime wages for the period 21.08.1977 to If, 12,1995 for the work done beyond his duty hours. The said.application was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer ; of the Tafeour Court and held that the workman(deceased) was Entitled tdUhe overtime wages for the period from 21.08.1977 to• If. 12;^ three months failing which the management -was, interest @ 9%. Being aggrieved, the responderhs herein preferred a writ petition challenging the order dated 28.03.2007 fJassed by POCGIT, which was allowed by the le^ed Sifrgle'^dge'df court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.06.2018 set aside the order dated 28.03.2007 on the ground that the learned POCGIT had no jurisdiction to first decide the workman's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. 3. Mr. M.Y. Khan, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the basis of the impugned order dated. 01.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge was, on the face of it, erroneous and unjustified; that the learned Single judge erred in not appreciating the statutory provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and that the Labour Court is competent to decide incidental issues under the said section; that it was duly admitted by the respondents that the deceased workman was .working for 12 hours in a day at Gate No. 60B an^^yit was wrongly , alleged that the services of the deceased workman were coming under Essentially Intermittent Services(:EI) under, Railway Rules; that, the learned Single . Judge has erroneously relied in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Rdzak & Anr reported in 1995 see (L&S) 296', that the qlaim was- filed by the deceased workman on 20.11.1998 and the same-was adjudicated upon by the Labour Court after the duration of 10 years\ In order to substantiate hisl submissions, the learned counsel' for the appellants relied on the cases of Bank of India Ltd. v. E.S. Rajgopalan reported in 1964 (3) SCR 140 and (Mief Mming Engineers, East India Coal Co. Ltd. V. RameshwarxoponQdi m' AIR 1968 Se 218. 4. Per contra, Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that there is no illegality i