1 2025:CGHC:54506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 5533 of 2010 1 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Through: the Divisional Manager, Raipur and Depot Manager, Durg (CG). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Yashpal Gupta S/o R.S.Gupta, Ex-Conductor, R/o Motipara, Durg, Distt. Durg Cg ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gourav Singhal with Ms. Praniti Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 07.11.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.05.2007 passed in Case No. 149/ID Act/Claim/2006 by the Labour Court, Durg (C.G.), whereby an application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) for payment of remaining overtime amount was allowed, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 26,130/- as overtime allowance, which was further directed to be recovered by issuance of Recovery Certificate (RRC) from the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was working as a Driver with MPSRTC and took voluntary retirement with effect from 31.03.2003. He submits that after taking voluntary retirement, the respondent ceased to fall within HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.14 17:52:21 +0530 2 the definition of “employee” under the Act. He further submits that CSIDC came into existence by notification dated 22.12.2002 (Annexure P/3). The respondent, after considerable lapse of time, filed an execution case under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 for recovery of Rs. 26,131/- as overtime amount, which has been allowed by the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court, directing recovery of the said amount. He submits that upon receipt of notice of the said application, the petitioner filed a detailed reply, categorically stating that the petitioner came into existence only pursuant to the 2002 notification, and that the respondent, being an employee of MPSRTC, could not claim any relief or compensation against the present petitioner. He further submits that the said application was not maintainable against the present petitioner, as the rights of the respondent had not been adjudicated by the Labour Court, and the application filed under Section 33-C(2) being in the nature of an execution proceeding, was not maintainable without prior adjudication of the claim. He submits that no documentary evidence was produced before the Labour Court in support of the respondent’s claim. The petitioner, in its reply, specifically denied the entitlement of the respondent to the alleged overtime amount of Rs. 26,131/-. He submits that payment of Rs. 38,708/- towards overtime allowance to the respondent was issued due to a clerical error, whereas the actual amount payable to him was only Rs. 12,571/-, which has already been paid. He further submits that unless and until the dispute regarding such entitlement was adjudicated, an application under Section 33- C(2) of the Act of 1947 was not maintainable. However, without considering these objections, the Labour Court passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that, inadvertently, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed as being not maintainable vide order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the State Industrial Court, C.G., Raipur. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Chemical v. 3 Deputy Labour Commissioner, (2022) 5 SCC 629, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 235. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if there has been no formal adjudication of the respondent’s claim, the entitlement of the respondent to the overtime amount stood admitted, as is evident from the documents filed before the Labour Court. Once there was no dispute regarding the respondent’s right to receive the said amount, it cannot be said that such right had not been determined by any competent authority. Therefore, the execution proceedings under Section 33- C(2) of the Act of 1947 were maintainable. She has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of The Superintending Engineer and anr. Vs. Pundlik Kondiba Pachpinde passed in WP No. 4812/2018 pronounced on 13.06.2025 and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Jayanti Ishwarbhai Parmar Vs. Sheth Shri Sabbir Mohammed Zubair reported in 2025 SCC Online Guj 421 in support of her submissions. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From the record, it appears that the respondent herein, who was the applicant before the learned Labour Court, had preferred an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. The petitioner, in its reply, categorically stated that the respondent was an employee of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the erstwhile undivided State, and that the said Corporation had completely abolished the overtime scheme in the year 1995. It was specifically submitted that after abolition of the scheme, neither was any overtime work taken from any employee nor was any payment made towards overtime. It was further stated that the respondent had not received overtime payment for the period between 1992 and 1995, and upon due calculation, an amount of Rs. 12,571/- had already been paid to him. As regards the balance amount, it was submitted that the remaining bill was under consideration for approval and was pending before the Chartered Accountant appointed by the Government on behalf of the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation. It was thus stated that 4 upon approval of the said bill, the respondent would be entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 4,032/-. 6. Dealing with the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Razak (supra) observed in paragraphs 12 and 13 as under:- "12. The High Court has referred to some of these decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workman to a certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to the entitlement is not incidental to the benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Sec. 33C(2) of the Act. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to : 6 : (RC) first decide the workman's entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power under Sec. 33C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court's power under Sec. 33C (2) like that of the executing Court's power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. 13. In these matters, the claim of the respondent workmen who were all daily rated/casual workers, to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the employer without which the stage for computation of that benefit could not reach. The workmen's claim of doing the same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workmen on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' being disputed, without an adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract Section 33C(2). The mere fact that some other workmen are alleged to have made a similar claim by : 7 : (RC) filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is indicative of the need for adjudication of the claim of entitlement of the benefit before computation of such a benefit could be sought. Respondents' claim is not based on a prior adjudication made in the writ petitions filed by 5 some other workmen upholding a similar claim which could be relied on as an adjudication ensuring to the benefit of these respondents as well. The writ petitions by some other workmen to which some reference was casually made, particulars of which are not available in these matters, have, therefore, no relevance for the present purpose. It must, therefore, be held that the Labour Court as well as the High Court were in error in treating as maintainable the applications made under Section 33C(2) of the Act by these respondents." 7. The case relied upon by the respondents does not lend any support to their contention. 8. In light of the above legal position, when there has been no determination of the respondent’s right to receive the claimed amount, the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 was not maintainable. 9. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned order dated 05.05.2007 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari