- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.52804 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED YASINULLA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED HAFIZ, RETIRED TRAFFIC INSPECTOR, K.S.R.T.C ., R/AT NO.30, 1ST ‘B’ CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, RAHAMATHNAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C ., KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR – 563 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.8/2009 DATED 29.07.2015 AND DIRECT RESPONDENT-CORPORATION TO PAY THE OVERTIME WAGES AMOUNTING TO RS.83,165/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by II Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru, in application No.8/2009. 2. In terms of the said order, II Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru, dismissed the petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 3. The petitioner who admittedly is an employee of the respondent-Corporation made a claim for payment of Rs.72,986/- towards wages payable on account of overtime work, which is said to have been extracted from the petitioner. The petitioner had also issued a notice on 29.09.2007 calling upon the respondent-Corporation to pay the said amount. The respondent-Corporation has not issued any reply to the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a claim under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 4. The respondent-Corporation contested the claim. It is the defense of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner did not work overtime for the period mentioned in the application. Since, the claim was disputed, the petitioner and respondent were permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective claim. Both the parties led evidence. 5. After considering the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal has concluded that the claim for overtime work by the petitioner is not established. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/workman is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the facts of the case and also the documents placed before the Court would contend that, on 29.09.2007 the petitioner made a claim for payment of Rs.72,986/- towards overtime wages payable to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 petitioner. It is urged that there is no response to the notice issued by the petitioner. The evidence was led and in the cross-examination before the Court, the witness examined on behalf of the respondent-Corporation admitted that there are records maintained by the respondent-Corporation disclosing the names of workers who have worked overtime. Witness further states that there is difficulty in producing the said records. Since, it is stated that the records are available and the same are not produced, the adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent- Corporation. Thus, he would urge that the claim of the petitioner relating to overtime work is established. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation, on the other hand, would contend that the claim relating to overtime work is not admitted and the same is disputed by the respondent-Corporation. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner was required to produce - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 materials relating to overtime work, which he claims to have done pursuant to the orders issued by the respondent-Corporation. No such orders are placed before the Court and the witness examined on behalf of the respondent-Corporation has also not admitted the claim of the petitioner. 9. Merely because, the records relating to the employees who have worked overtime are not produced by the respondent-Corporation, adverse inference cannot be drawn since the fact that the records are not maintained beyond five years and evidence was led in the year 2009. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation would also contend that the petitioner made claim for payment of overtime wages for some other period on earlier occasions and all his claims have been rejected by the Tribunal noticing the fact that the register relating to overtime is not counter signed by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 concerned Officer. In the present case also, the register, which is produced by the petitioner relating to alleged overtime work does not bear the counter signature of the Officer certifying the overtime work said to have been done by the petitioner and taking note of this aspect, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the petition. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 12. There is no dispute that the claim made by the petitioner relating to the alleged overtime work is disputed by the respondent-Corporation. This being the position, the burden lies on the petitioner to establish that he worked overtime for the given period. The petitioner claims to have submitted a register recording his overtime work. The said register is marked at Ex.-A.10. This Court has perused the said extract at Ex.-A.10. The register does not bear the signature of the officer who has to certify the overtime work done by the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 13. The petitioner in the cross-examination has admitted that he himself has written the contents of the register. This being the position, in the absence of any counter signature by the concerned Officer of the respondent-Corporation, the said document cannot be construed as a proof of overtime work done by the petitioner. It is also noticed that a direction to work overtime will be issued in writing. Such document evidencing such direction is not produced by the petitioner. 14. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent-Corporation for not producing the register relating to overtime work, which is said to have been maintained by the respondent-Corporation, merely based on the adverse inference, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted given the fact that the petitioner is also required to produce the letters relating to overtime - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 work said to have been issued by the respondent- Corporation. 15. 15. It is also noticed by the Tribunal that the petitioner has not raised any objection for not having signed or countersigning the entries in the register produced by the petitioner marked at Ex.-A10 by bringing it to the notice of the higher officer on the premise that the concerned Officer has not countersigned Ex.-A.10. This is one of the reasons noted by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim. 16. This Court is exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The law relating to the scope of High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 against an order passed by the Tribunal is well settled. The High Court would interfere in the order, if it is based on no evidence or order is passed on the basis of inadmissible evidence or if admissible evidence is ignored. As can be seen from the impugned award, the Tribunal - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7353 WP No. 52804 of 2015 has placed reliance on the evidence led before the Court, particularly, Ex.A.10, which does not bear the counter signature. The Tribunal has also noticed that the similar claim for different period made by the petitioner is rejected by the Court on earlier occasions and the said orders have been confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.40664/2011. 17. Under these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be an order without any evidence, so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where the Court is concerned with the decision making process rather than the decision. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42