D.KRISHNAN & ANR. versus SPECIAL OFFICER, VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 1239 · Decided: 16-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1239 
D.KRISHNAN & ANR. 
A 
v. 
SPECIAL OFFICER, VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR 
MILL & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.3619 of 2008) 
MAY 16, 2008 
B 
• 
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 33 C(2) - Applicability 
of - Held: Proceedings u/s 33 C(2) are in nature of execution c 
proceedings - Such proceedings presupposes some adjudi-
cation. leading to determination of right, which has to be en-
forced - On facts, application uls 33 C(2) filed for claiming 
overtime wages - There was no adjudication - Workman re-
lied on documentary evidence consisting of punch time cards D 
and the same not supported by oral evidence by workmen -
Claimants were prima-facie, Managers, thus, Labour Court 
had no jurisdiction in the matter - Claim u/s. 59 of Factories 
Act also not tenable as claimants were not authorized to work 
overtime by overtime slip - More so, order granting benefit of 
E 
overtime wages to identically placed employee not applicable 
- Thus, application uls 33 C(2) not maintainable - Factories 
Act, 1948 - s. 59. 
Appellants were appointed with the respondent's 
mill. They were put in charge of the employees canteen 
F 
for different periods. Appellant claimed overtime wages 
for certain period as they had put in overtime work. An-
other employee J also raised a similar claim and the 
Labour Court allowed the same. However, the Labour 
Court did not give benefit to the appellants as given to J, 
G 
even though it had given an assurance to make payment. 
Aggrieved, appellants filed application u/s. 33C(2) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for claiming overtime wages. 
The Labour Court allowed the application. It held that 
1239 
H 
1240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
A though an application u/s 33 C(2) of the Act was in the 
.... 
,_ 
nature of an execution and a claim could not be deter-
mined thereunder, but could be determined u/s. 59 of the 
.. 
Ji,; 
Factories Act 1948 which visualized payment of overtime 
wages; that the documents on reco"rd had proved the per-
B formance of overtime work; and that the award in the case 
of J had become final. Respondent-Management filed writ 
petition. High Court upheld the award of the Labour Court. 
• 
\8 
In writ appeal, the High Court held that the reliance on 
'•• 
documentary evidence by the Labour Court was not ten-
'. 
'11 
c able; that the punch time cards did not constitute proof 
as the burden of proof rested on the person claiming over-
time; that it was the specific stand of the respondent that 
the workmen had never been authorized by anybody to 
work overtime; that proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the ·Act 
D being in the nature of execution proceedings, could only 
\ 
be effective in case of a pre-existing right and as the claim 
,. 
of the respondent workmen was disputed, this was not a 
matter for decision under the said provision. The Writ ap-
to 
peal was allowed and the order of the Single Judge and 
) 
the award of the Labour Court were quashed. Hence the 
< 
E present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
,.,,
HELD: 1.1. The fact that proceedings under section 
33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are in the na-
)-
F ture of execution proceedings is in no doubt, and such 
' 
proceedings presuppose some adjudication leading to 
the determination of a right, which has to be enforced. 
Concededly there has been no such adjudication in the 
instant case. It will be seen that the reliance of the appel-
G !ant-workmen is exclusively on documentary evidence 
placed on record which consisted primarily of the punch 
.. 
time cards and the representations that had been filed from 
time to time before the respondents. [Para 5] [1246-d,e] 
H 
1.2 The claim by the appellants has been disputed 
D.KRISHNAN & ANR. v. SPECIAL OFF. 
1241 
VELLORE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILL 
by the respondents from the beginning and that the docu-
A 
ments filed by the appellants themselves suggest that they 
were unsure of their own status. The representations filed 
as additional documents have l:>t~en perused. A perusal 
of the letter from SKP-Special Officer shows that the first 
appellant was being posted as a Canteen Manager. The s 
subsequent letters were all written by the first appellant 
identifying his post as that of Manager of the canteen and 
in the body of the last letter, a specific plea was made that 
amongst the several duties entrusted to him, he had to 
instruct 4 workers to come in the morning, to pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.