1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
[a] Your Lordships may pleased to admit this petition
[b] Quash and set aside the impugned award dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Anand in Recovery Application No. 187 of 1992 (old Recovery Application No. 270/1989) and by allowing the prayer of application U/S 33C(2) of the I.D. Act direct the respondent authority to pay Rs. 82,712/ Ps. with 15% running interest till recovery of the amount.
[c] By issue appropriate writ or direction and/or order, the respondent authority be directed to deposit the amount of Rs.82,712.10 Ps., and 15% running interest amount before this Court in the interest of Justice immediatley.
[d] xxx”
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitionerworkman was serving as Watchman with the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he discharged his duties from 22.11.1966 to 3.9.1989 at night time 8 pm. to 8 am for a period of 12 hours. It is further the case of the petitioner that the provisions of the I.D. Act are applicable and as per the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, the petitioner is a workman. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application U/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 82,712.10 from the respondents. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.3.2004, rejected the said Application. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. It appears form the record that the Labour Court has rejected the application of the petitioner mainly on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitionerworkman was governed by the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services ( Gujarat ) Rules, 1971. The claim of the petitioner was with regard to the over time. Now when the service condition of the petitionerworkman was governed by the provisions of the BCSR Rules, the relevant Labour laws would not apply to his case. The documents on record shows that that the service condition of the petitionerworkman was governed by the provisions of the BCSR Rules and not by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the Court below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner since the service condition of the petitioner was governed by the BCSR, Rules.
4. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity much less any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons in dismissed the application of the petitionerworkman. I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Labour court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan