Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned counsel, for Mr. Hemang M. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner. He has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court upon the Recovery Application preferred by respondent No.1, is bad in law inasmuch as the only ground on which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to pay an amount of Rs.2,80,800/- to respondent No.1 as overtime dues, is based upon an assumption that Recovery Application made by respondent No.1 is within the prescribed period of limitation.
It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has claimed dues of overtime for the years 1980 to 1990. The period of three years would expire at the end of 1993. That respondent No.1 superannuated on 31.01.1997 and has preferred the Recovery Application in the year 1999.
It is contended that before the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation had taken a specific stand that as per General Standing Order No.197 of 13.06.1969, the records pertaining to the service of respondent No.1 have already been destroyed. It is contended that respondent No.1 has not produced any proof of having worked overtime during this period, except his own ipse dixit.
Rule Returnable on 18.07.2012.
The implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh shall remain stayed, till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, direct service is also permitted.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) PIYUSH Top