JUDGMENT : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. The petitioner, the opponent in Recovery Application arising from the proceedings of Recovery (Central) Application No. 112/82 in Recovery Application No. 82/1979 has approached this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order and award dated 5/9/2001 allowing the application of the respondent workman and directing the petitioner bank to pay Rs. 34,674/- along with 9 % interest to be calculated from the date of application till realisation of the amount and cost of Rs. 2,500/-. The respondent workman died during pendency of the petition and hence the heirs have been permitted to be impleaded in place of respondent workman, who have duly been represented by learned advocate Shri Mishra. 2. The facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from memo of the petition deserve to be set out as under. The respondent workman, herein after referred to workman for the sake of convenience and brevity was constrained to prefer Recovery Application No. 82/1979 on 5/3/1979, inter alia urging that the bank be directed to pay Rs. 34,675.20 as overtime wages admissible and due & payable to the workman under the provisions of law and as per the settlement award in respect of the wages, dearness allowance etc. prevailing in the bank. Said application was resisted on account of contention that the workman was not an employee so as to claim overtime wages, and in alternative a plea was advanced that the workman even as per the award was not entitled to receive overtime wages on account of nature of duties whereby the watchman of such type were specifically excluded form entitlement to receive overtime wages as per clause 14 (3) of the bipartite settlement which is sought to be relied upon by the workman for claiming overtime wages. 3. The Labour Court negatived the contention of the bank/petitioner herein above and ordered payment of overtime wages as claimed with Rs. 2,500/- cost in the recovery application vide order dated 5.9.2001 which is impugned in this petition. 3. The Labour Court negatived the contention of the bank/petitioner herein above and ordered payment of overtime wages as claimed with Rs. 2,500/- cost in the recovery application vide order dated 5.9.2001 which is impugned in this petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to the Statement of Claim as well as written statement and the reasoning of the Labour Court for accepting the application and submitted that the contention of the advocate have not been properly dealt with or appreciated by the Labour Court as it was first and foremost submission made before the Labour Court that the Court did not have jurisdiction to examine the controversy qua overtime in an application made invoking section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as I.D. Act for brevity). 4. Mr. Macwan, Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court went on drawing adverse inferences which was not justified as the claim of the workman and its basis were absolutely clear from the application preferred by the workman. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon following authorities to support the proposition of law and his submission that in a recovery proceeding the disputed question of fact, or even question pertaining to entitlement cannot be subject matter of scrutiny under provision of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act: (1) Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak and Another, (1995) 1 SCC 235 (2) Naranji Peraji Transport Co. vs. Ramnikbhai B. Waghela, 1998 (2) GLR 982 (3) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brijpal Singh, 2005 (O) GLHEL-SC 35876 SC (4) State Bank of India vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 73 (5) Chief Superintendent, Government Livestock Farm Hissar vs. Ramesh Kumar, (1997) 11 SCC 363 Contended that, therefore, if one looks at the entire award in that perspective one would have no problem in arriving at a conclusion that the Labour Court did not exercise jurisdiction in accordance with provision of Section 33C(2), or in the alternative Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction and ventured upon deciding not only the disputed facts but the entitlement of the workman based upon the elaborate evidence which were itself sufficient to render the workman liable to take out proceedings for adjudication of his claim in a recovery proceeding by way of raising industrial dispute. In the instant case summary proceeding resorted under section 33C(2) of I.D. Act were not maintainable and therefore on this aspect also the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the recovery application. 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, it was further contended that the workman's claim for overtime was based upon the award which does contain specific provision with regard to exclusion of such type of watchman and Labour Court could not have brushed it aside by merely saying that the advocate for the bank did not show as to how the award was applicable to the temporary workman like the present respondent. Thus at that time the Labour Court did not appreciate the fact that the award was made basis for claiming overtime by the workman as could be seen from statement of claim and written statement. Learned advocate for the petitioner therefore submitted that the petition is required to be allowed. 6. Shri. Mishra, Learned advocate for the workman contended that the deposition of the bank's witnesses and the bank's stand indicate that the Labour Court has rightly allowed the application and awarded wages of overtime. The overtime wages available and admissible once the workman is retained on job or compelled to work for 8 hours of duty was over. The deposition of the witness of the bank and the calculation put up for overtime has remained undisputed as could be seen from the observation of the Labour Court in para-18 of the award reproduced in the compilation of the petition, on running para-35. In light of this fact and the version this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India need not disturb the same. 7. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the workman relied upon the following authorities: (1) Natwarlal Amrutlal Shah vs. Employees State Insurance Scheme, 2001 (4) LLN 1203 (2) State of Gujarat vs. Akbalsing Rameshwarsing, 2008 (1) LLJ 254 Submitted that the Labour Court have jurisdiction to examine the controversy as the Labour Court has clearly held that mere denial of relationship of employer employee by the bank and the written statement would not take out the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and therefore on that ground also the petition is required to be dismissed. 8. 8. Learned advocate for the workman has further contended that non production of various documents namely shift book, passbook, and other records requested to be produced specifically by an application and non production thereof by the bank was sufficient for drawing adverse inference that those documents must have been contrary to the stand of the bank, and therefore, the bank's withholding the same in light of this when the Court has specifically drawn adverse inference as could be seen from the observations and recording of findings on para-9 and on page-34 running page of the petition, this Court may not interfere with the award in any manner. 9. This Court is of the considered view that from the material on record, the award in question and the statement of claim and written statement, following in disputed facts emerge therefrom, which are required to be set out as under: "(a) The recovery application is produced at page-51 of the memo of petition wherein it is clearly emerging that the workman claimed overtime on the basis of the settlement and this factor cannot be ignored by any one as there appears to be no other averment qua claimant's entitlement for overtime demanded by him vide application under consideration. (b) The written statement, copy whereof is also produced on record contains various submissions and pleadings qua the relationship of employer-employee, the nature of work alleged to have performed by the workman and in para-5 reproduced on page-61 of the compilation it was pleaded that the workman was not entitled to overtime as para-14(3) of the bipartite settlement between Banking Companies and their workmen as watchmen were not entitled to overtime at all. (c) Document produced at page no. 65 as Annexure-D of the compilation is also not disputed which indicate that special allowance was in fact paid to the workman concerned. (d) Para-14 discussed in the aforesaid paragraph is also produced by way of exhibit-36/2 that also clearly indicate that the employees of godown, be godown keeper, or be it watchman were specifically excluded from the purview of being eligible for receiving overtime wages. (d) Para-14 discussed in the aforesaid paragraph is also produced by way of exhibit-36/2 that also clearly indicate that the employees of godown, be godown keeper, or be it watchman were specifically excluded from the purview of being eligible for receiving overtime wages. (e) The Labour Court has not accepted the contention of the employer bank qua workman not being in employment of the bank as claimed on account of the fact that one award under the industrial dispute by reference raised by workman against this illegal termination was referred to the Labour Court being Reference No. 14/80 and the award rendered there under is heavily relied upon a not pressed into service to indicate that there existed some relationship which would not wholly disentitle the workman or justifying to be in employment with the bank, though the nature of employment and or status of workman is sought to be later on diluted by he Court on account of treating him to be a temporary employee not covered by the award is sought to be relied upon by the workman/watchman as well as the bank as could be seen from the recovery application as well as the written statement. (f) The findings qua non applicability of the award and the reasoning does contain as to under which provision of law the workman was entitled for overtime wages when workman himself has claimed his wages only under the award." 10. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, the question arises as to whether to consider the above discussion and the reasoning made by the Labour Court for allowing the application could be said to be a finding or merely a statement of in disputed facts. The answer would be that the reasoning and the discussions is nothing but an attempt to adjudicate and find out the status of relationship between the two. In other words, it was not mere reiteration of the claim or entitlement of the claim or admissibility of the claim on account of evidences adduced. It was in fact a conclusion and therefore said conclusion was required to be supported with reasonable reasons sustainable in eye of law. 11. In other words, it was not mere reiteration of the claim or entitlement of the claim or admissibility of the claim on account of evidences adduced. It was in fact a conclusion and therefore said conclusion was required to be supported with reasonable reasons sustainable in eye of law. 11. The fact remains to be noted that the Labour Court undertook exercise of examining employer-employee relationship and did not rest its reasoning there only but went further and gave elaborate findings based upon elaborate evidences recorded to see that the workman is entitled for overtime. In the instant case such a finding was uncalled for in exercise of power or jurisdiction under section 33C (2) of the I.D. Act. The decisions cited at the Bar on behalf of the workman do not help the workman in any manner as those discussions are not on the point as to whether in a given situation where workman could not establish his entitlement for receiving the wages and when there is specific plea taken on behalf of the employer that the work is excluded from the purview of payment of overtime wages, then, it was a duty cast upon the Court to record its cogent reasons which may not be an elaborate reasoning but a reason which would be justified and indicated that the workman have existing right to be enforced for receiving the overtime wages. In the instant case non production of some documents on the part of the bank cannot be said to be sufficient justification for allowing the claim of the workman for overtime wages as the specific plea of the bank qua exclusion of the workman from the purview of receiving overtime wages on account of he being employed or engaged the work on a godown is absolutely not denied anywhere, when said pleadings have not been demolished in any manner either by the workman or the counsel, the Labour Court could not have proceeded further and dealt with it in a manner as if there existed right already accruing in favour of the workman. Had there been a right accrued in favour of the workman nothing prevented the workman from producing the documentary evidence in establishing his case. Had there been a right accrued in favour of the workman nothing prevented the workman from producing the documentary evidence in establishing his case. On the contrary in the instant case workman in an unequivocal term claimed his right flowing from the wage settlement which when produced by the bank clearly indicate that watchmen and godown keepers were excluded from the purview of obligation of payment of overtime wages. This factum is sought to be rejected on account of the reason that the bank has not established that wage settlement was applicable to the workmen. In my view this question did not arise as the workman started his claim in the application from the wage settlement itself which is evident from narration made herein above. Therefore, the factor of deciding whether the workman was entitled to overtime wages or not being in this peculiar facts & circumstances of the case not available to the Court, the Court has exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it, therefore the order is vitiated on that count also and is required to be quashed and set aside. 12. The Court hasten to add here that had there been merely a submission without any record or proceeding to justify the stand that the workman is not a workman or is not employee or is not entitled against the cogent evidence, then, mere plea would not disentitle the Court form entertaining the application. In the instant case the plea raised and the material produced go to show sufficiently that the question thereafter did not remain within the purview of section 33C (2) and it required elaborate adjudication which the Court was not required or entitled to undertake while exercising jurisdiction which is merely in nature under section 33-C(2). In view of this the award being not sustainable in eye of law is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 13. The petition, therefore, is allowed. Rule made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.