U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Babu Lal
2012 Latest Caselaw 730 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 730 ALL
Judgement Date : 24 April, 2012

Allahabad High Court

U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Babu Lal on 24 April, 2012

Bench: Sudhir Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26864 of 1994
 

 
Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
 
Respondent :- Babu Lal
 
Petitioner Counsel :- V.M. Sahai,J.N.Singh,Vivek Saran
 
Respondent Counsel :- Sc
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri J.N. Singh for the petitioner and perused the record.

The writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19.3.1986 passed under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, (in short, the Act), holding that respondent no. 1 is entitled to the overtime allowance for the period from May, 1984 to April 30, 1985 and directing a payment of Rs. 6117.45 as overtime allowance, the same amount as damages and Rs. 100/- as costs; and the appellate order dated 7.5.1994, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 1 was a senior foreman, hence was discharging supervisory duties and was not covered by the Act.

The courts below have followed the judgement of this Court, dated 18.12.1982, in CM WP No. 227 of 1977, whereby this Court upheld the labour court's award dated 13.4.1976 and it was held that a junior foreman or senior foreman was entitled to overtime allowance.There is no other pleading in the entire writ petition that the aforesaid judgement of the High Court has been misinterpreted by the labour court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 9 of the writ petition, but it simply says that respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction to decide the mannter. There is no assertion that the judgement of the High Court followed by the authorities below, holding that respondent no. 1 was entitled for the overtime allowance, did not say so.

Even otherwise also, the matter involves a meagre sum Rs. 12,000 and odd, awarded to respondent no. 1. This petition is pending since 19866, i.e. for almost 18 years.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :- 24.4.2012

sks-grade iv