Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1038 (MP)

M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Mathura Prasad Upadhyaya

2000-09-20

S.S.JHA

body2000
1. Petitioner-Road Transport Corporation has filed this petition challenging the orders, passed by Labour Court and Industrial Court, in an application of respondent No. 1 under sections 31, 61 and 62 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was holding the post of conductor and he has moved an application that he should be paid overtime from the month of December, 1977 to 20th November, 1990. The respondent No. 1 has continuously worked as conductor on a route from Behind to Bhopal from the year 1977 and he has worked for 14 hours per day, which is in excess of 8 hours per day. The petitioner has worked overtime for 6 hours per day. 3. The contention of the respondent was denied. Specific plea was raised that the application was barred by limitation. Only two years dues can be claimed by the respondent and the claim beyond two years is barred. 4. The Labour Court has allowed the application and held that the respondent is entitled to get the overtime. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the declaration given by respondent No. 1. Annexure P-5, was not considered, whereby the respondent has submitted that he should be allowed to move in the bus alone and he will not claim overtime. 6. However, the petitioner could not point out any order of any appropriate authority accepting Annexure P-5. Even otherwise if a person has worked, he cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights. Now only question involved in the case is whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to relief of overtime from December, 1977 to 20th November, 1990. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then invited attention to the provisions of section 62 of the Act and submitted that the proceedings before the Labour Court shall commence in respect of a dispute falling under clause (a) of paragraph (A) of sub-section (1) of section 61 within two years from the date of the dispute. Learned counsel then submitted that the application should be filed within two years from the cause of action. 8. In the order, Annexure P-2, passed by Labour Court the, Labour Court has recorded a finding that the application was well within time. Ex.P-2, dated 28.11.1988 was marked by Depot Manager. Learned counsel then submitted that the application should be filed within two years from the cause of action. 8. In the order, Annexure P-2, passed by Labour Court the, Labour Court has recorded a finding that the application was well within time. Ex.P-2, dated 28.11.1988 was marked by Depot Manager. Thus, it was filed well within two years. 9. Record of the Labour Court has been called. Ex.P/1 is dated 22.3.1984, wherein it is ordered that the conductors, who are traveling on Behind-Bhopal route, are given 5 hours overtime and after appointment of two conductors no overtime is payable. Vide Ex.P/2 the respondent No. 1 has moved an application on 28.11.1988 that he should be paid overtime from December, 1977. Some Clerk has prepared the bill subject to approval by Divisional Office but overtime of conductors of Behind-Bhopal route was rejected. It is also mentioned that the bill had not cleared as it was not passed by Divisional Office, Gwalior. Considering the facts of the case, the respondent has asked for his claim of overtime in the year 1988. Thus, cause of action to the respondent, if any accrued, was in the year 1977. The petition is filed by the respondent on 22.11.1990. Thus, he should be entitled to claim of overtime for two years only, i.e. from 22.11.1988 upto the date of application. His claim prior to 22.11.1988 is not maintainable under section 62 of the Act. Even otherwise the respondent will not set any limitation from document, Ex.P-2. The document, Ex.P-2, is a claim made by the respondent for payment of overtime charges. On this claim some notings have been written but claim of respondent has not been accepted by the competent authority, i.e. Divisional Officer. As such, the orders passed by Industrial Court and Labour Court are modified to the effect that the respondent No. 1 is entitled for overtime charges and he will get this payment for a period of two years prior to the dale of filing application. His claim of overtime prior to this date from December 1977 to 19th November 1988 is rejected. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds in part. There shall be no orders as to costs.