Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2002 Latest Caselaw 650 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Bharucha for the petitioner, Mr. Rana appears for the respondent. This petition seeks to challenge various notification issued by the Respondent enhancing the amounts which are required to be paid by the petitioner who are running a Customs Freight Station under Section 45 of the Customs Act. The amounts are required towards the overtime payment. Inasmuch as various submissions were raised in this petition, a direction was given earlier to the Commissioner of Customs to hear the petitioner and then pass the reasoned order. The Commissioner of Customs has heard the petitioner and thereafter passed order on 27th March, 2002 which is a detailed over giving reasons and justifications for this demand of overtime payment. Mr. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that. Firstly these officers are doing their duty and for that certain fixed contribution is made by the petitioner. The second submission of Mr. Bharucha is that there are persons engaged round the clock and whose payment is otherwise covered in the fixed payment and, therefore, overtime payment should not be added. Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Commissioner which give reasons. The order points out that there are six Freight Station, one of which is that of the petitioner and it is for providing services to all these six stations that the concerned charges are levied. The officers concerned and the staff provide services to all the six Customs Freight Stations and the amounts are divided amongst all of them and that is how certain amounts are charged from them. He, however, points out that the volume of work has gone up over the years and, therefore, overtime work and payment has become necessary. In our view, this is purely an administrative matter and if the petitioner are interested in running the Customs Freight Station. The terms which are expected from them have to be fulfilled by them. The amounts which are to be paid to the Respondents are passed on the their customers by the petitioner and, hence they cannot have any grievance.

2. There is no reason to entertain the petition. The petition stands dismissed.

3. Mr. Bharucha makes request that the ad interim, relief granted earlier may be extended for a period of six weeks. Mr. Rana leaves it to the Court. The ad interim order will continue for a period of six weeks.