Section 33-C(2) Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Entitlement to Overtime Wages Without an Established Right.

The petitioner, the management, challenged an order of the Labour Court allowing the second respondent-workman’s claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for ₹3,58,782 in overtime wages, with interest upon default.

The workman claimed that he had worked four hours of overtime per shift over a period of nearly six years.

The management disputed that he had worked overtime.

The Labour Court inferred from the management witness’s testimony that overtime work had been performed and allowed the claim.

The management sought to have that order set aside on the ground that the disputed entitlement required adjudication beyond the Labour Court’s jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2).

1. Whether a claim for overtime wages disputed by the management can be determined under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the claimed overtime work has not been admitted or otherwise established.

2. Whether the Labour Court’s inference from the management witness’s testimony amounted to impermissible adjudication of disputed facts under Section 33-C(2).

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides a mechanism for computing and enforcing an existing or established right; it does not empower the Labour Court to adjudicate a disputed entitlement requiring prior establishment of the right.

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, (1995) 1 SCC 235, the Supreme Court characterized the provision as execution-like and held that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate a disputed basis of entitlement.

Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan, AIR 1964 SC 743, recognizes that an inquiry into the existence of a right may be incidental to computation; the Court distinguished such an inquiry from an adjudication essential to establish the right itself.

The judgment also referred to KMJ Public School v. Ance, 2020 (5) KLT 609, and D+H Solutions India Private Limited v. Jayakrishnan Ramachandran Nair, 2026 (2) KHC 51, concerning the limits of Section 33-C(2) where the underlying entitlement is disputed.

The Court found that the management had not admitted that the workman performed overtime.

Whether he had worked the claimed hours was therefore not an incidental question arising in computation; it was essential to establishing his entitlement to overtime wages.

The workman’s pleaded claim was for work from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., whereas the Labour Court relied on selected portions of the management witness’s testimony to infer different shift hours and overtime.

The Court held that this selective assessment resolved disputed facts and went beyond the permissible scope of a Section 33-C(2) proceeding.

It distinguished an incidental inquiry into the rate of wages, which may follow an admitted or established right, from an inquiry needed to establish whether overtime work occurred at all.

It allowed the writ petition, set aside the Labour Court’s order dated 28 April 2025, and dismissed Claim Petition No. 32/2019.