Introduction:

In the case decided by Justice Prafulla Khubalkar of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on June 13, 2025 (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15061), the Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a labour court award granting overtime wages with interest to three retired employees of the Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), affirming the jurisdiction of the labour court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to enforce a pre-existing statutory right under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, which explicitly provides for overtime pay at twice the ordinary rate for hours worked beyond the statutory limit, noting that this provision forms a clear statutory entitlement for employees. The case arose after the three retired Artisan A employees, who had not been paid for sanctioned overtime work prior to their retirement in 2011-2012, approached the labour court seeking recovery of Rs.6,12,900 with interest, which the labour court granted in 2017, prompting MSEDCL’s writ petition.

Arguments:

Represented by Mr. U. S. Malte, MSEDCL argued that Section 33(C)(2) only allows enforcement of rights that are undisputed and pre-established, not adjudication of disputed entitlements, asserting that the employees’ overtime entitlement was itself disputed based on internal circulars capping overtime hours at 75 and excluding Artisan A employees from eligibility, and cited precedents including Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar v. Ultra Drytech Engineering and Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner to support its position that the labour court lacked jurisdiction to decide contested claims. Conversely, the employees’ counsel, Mr. G. N. Kulkarni, argued that their right to overtime wages was not in dispute because the executive engineer had already sanctioned their overtime work and the corresponding pay, meaning the only issue was execution of an admitted liability, which fell squarely under Section 33(C)(2), and emphasized that Section 59 of the Factories Act established an undeniable statutory right to overtime compensation.

Judgement:

In its detailed reasoning, the High Court first affirmed that Section 59 of the Factories Act grants a statutory, pre-existing right to overtime wages, which forms the legal foundation for claiming amounts under Section 33(C)(2) when an employer fails to pay despite sanctioning the work; the Court underscored that the case did not involve determination of new rights but merely execution of an existing right supported by undisputed documentary evidence.

Second, the Court distinguished Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar, clarifying that in that case there was no sanctioned overtime, whereas here, the executive engineer’s sanction constituted clear evidence of entitlement, thus eliminating any factual dispute about the employees’ right to payment.

Third, the Court addressed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bombay Chemical Industries, explaining that it was inapplicable because in that matter the very existence of employment was disputed, unlike the present case where employment, overtime worked, and amounts sanctioned were all established and undisputed facts, leaving only execution pending. The Court further explained that under Section 33(C)(2), when an employee demonstrates a clear entitlement based on statutory provisions or sanctioned documents, the labour court can execute recovery without needing to adjudicate any fresh right, and found that MSEDCL’s reliance on internal circulars was unpersuasive because statutory rights under the Factories Act override contrary internal policies, especially where overtime has been duly sanctioned by a competent authority. The Court criticized MSEDCL for delaying payments to retired employees entitled to compensation for work already performed, and ruled that the labour court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) to award the sanctioned overtime wages with interest, observing that refusing payment despite clear evidence of entitlement undermines the statutory scheme protecting workers’ rights. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, and the labour court’s award was upheld, confirming that retired employees were entitled to overtime wages with interest for overtime work performed during their employment, and reinforcing that Section 33(C)(2) is the appropriate legal remedy when there is no genuine dispute over entitlement.