Skip to content


Shivaji Gulabrao Bhoite Vs. B.N. Biscuit Confectionery Works and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Civil Application No. 846 of 1967
Judge
Reported in(1968)IILLJ73Bom
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33C(2)
AppellantShivaji Gulabrao Bhoite
RespondentB.N. Biscuit Confectionery Works and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....rendered on 7 january, 1968 and the decision of the supreme court in east india coal company, ltd. v. rameshwar and others : (1968)illj6sc . on this question, sri john for respondent 1, has absolutely no answer. 2. he, however, tried to contend that there is no merit in the application and the applicant was absent. the only thing that can be said on this point is that the labour court did not dispose of the matter on merits or on the ground of absence of the applicant. it disposed it of only on the short point that the labour court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter where evidently it was wrong. 3. in the result, we set aside the order of the labour court and direct it to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. as the application is of 1965, the labour court should.....
Judgment:

Patel, J.

1. The petitioner in this case made an application to respondent 2, which is the first labour court, for recovery of overtime allowance from respondent 1 factory. The labour court, relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kays Construction Company (Private); Ltd. : (1962)IILLJ8All , held that overtime wages did not differ from earned wages and, therefore, the labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Obviously, this decision is untenable in view of the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 389 of 1967 rendered on 7 January, 1968 and the decision of the Supreme Court in East India Coal Company, Ltd. v. Rameshwar and others : (1968)ILLJ6SC . On this question, Sri John for respondent 1, has absolutely no answer.

2. He, however, tried to contend that there is no merit in the application and the applicant was absent. The only thing that can be said on this point is that the labour court did not dispose of the matter on merits or on the ground of absence of the applicant. It disposed it of only on the short point that the labour court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter where evidently it was wrong.

3. In the result, we set aside the order of the labour court and direct it to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. As the application is of 1965, the labour court should hear and dispose of the matter within one month from the record and the order reaching it. The petitioner will get the costs from respondent 1.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //