Industrial Disputes Act; Section 33(C)(2) Only Applies If Entitlement Is Established Through Undisputed Evidence: Bombay HC

Background

Three former employees of the Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) were holding the post of 'Artisan A'. They retired in 2011-2012. Before retiring, they had worked overtime for a certain period but had not received any wages for the extra hours, despite it being sanctioned by the executive engineer. Notably, they had always been paid overtime wages in the past.

After their retirement, they approached the labour court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act'). Section 33(c )(2) of the Act allows a workman to recover benefits from an employer if there is a pre-existing right to the same. They argued that they were owed Rs.6,12,900 in total, with 18% interest.

The labour court found that the employees had a clear pre-existing right to the claimed amounts. Thus, in 2017, the court allowed their application and awarded them the overtime pay with 12% interest.

Aggrieved, MSEDCL filed a writ application challenging this order.

Arguments

MSEDCL argued that the labour court's order was illegal as the employees did not have any pre-existing right to overtime wages. They argued that Section 33(c )(2) of the Act was only limited to executing pre-established rights and not for determining new rights. Further, they submitted an internal circular which capped overtime at 75 hours, and also excluded 'Artisan A' employees from claiming any overtime wages. Citing Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar v. Ultra Drytech Engineering (Writ Petition No. 5460 of 2003), and Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner (Civil Appeal No. 813 of 2022), they argued that since the entitlement itself was disputed, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2).

On the other hand, the employees argued that the entitlement was not in dispute. They presented multiple documents that showed that the executive engineer had sanctioned the overtime wages. They argued that the right was already established, and the only issue was the implementation of this right. Thus, they submitted that Section 33(C)(2) was the proper remedy. They also pointed out that in any case, Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, provided a statutory right to receive overtime pay.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court noted that Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, explicitly recognises a statutory right to overtime wages at twice the ordinary rate. The court held that this provision is a pre-existing right, and provides the basis for the employees' claims under Section 33(c )(2). Thus, the court ruled that the labour court had jurisdiction under Section 33(c )(2).

Secondly, the court noted that the claim before the labour court was not to decide whether any overtime pay was due in principle; instead, it was about executing the payment that was already sanctioned by an officer. Thus, the court held that Section 33(c )(2) is the appropriate provision to invoke, as there is no question of determining a new entitlement and it is only about executing the sanctioned payment. The court also distinguished the facts of Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar, holding that the authorities had not sanctioned any payment in that case.

Thirdly, the court discussed the case of Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner. The court noted that in Bombay Chemical Industries, there was a factual dispute about employment itself, and thus the Supreme Court found that there was no jurisdiction under Section 33(c )(2). Here, the court explained that the facts of employment, overtime work or the sanctioned amounts were not disputed, and only the final approval step was. Thus, the court held that Bombay Chemical did not apply.

Lastly, the court explained that Section 33(c )(2) applies when an entitlement can be shown through undisputed evidence, like sanctioned bills, etc. Since the executive engineer had already sanctioned the amounts, the court held that MSEDCL could not withhold payment.

Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition and held that the labour court has jurisdiction under Section 33(c )(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Decided on: 13-06-2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15061

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. U. S. Malte

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. G. N. Kulkarni

Click Here To Read/Download The Order