( Delivered by The Honourable The Acting Chief Justice ) All these writ appeals have been preferred by the Management of Hardy Exploration and Production India Inc., Chennai against the common order dated 18.11.2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in different writ petitions. They are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The contesting respondents of each case, viz., the second respondent in the respective writ appeals, who are employees under the appellant-Management, filed petitions under
Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai contending that they are entitled to receive Rs.60/- per hour as their overtime wages on the basis of their consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The said claim was resisted by the appellant-Management on the ground that their basic salary is only Rs.2,500/- per month and adding House Rent Allowance and other allowances, they received Rs.5,000/- per month; thus, the Management was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.30/- per hour as their overtime wages, which has been paid. The Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai, vide order dated 15.12.2006, allowed the claim made by the workmen on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. The said finding was also affirmed by the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 18.11.2008.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Management, while referring to certain exhibits, submitted that those documents were not correctly appreciated by the Labour Court nor by the writ court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the records.
5. It will be evident from the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai that two witnesses, one on behalf of the Management and the other on behalf of the workman, were examined and a number of documents were produced by both the parties which were marked. The workmen produced two documents marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, whereas the Management produced nine documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9, as detailed below the judgment dated 15.12.2006. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court came to a definite conclusion that the workmen were receiving a consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and the same does not include H.R.A., etc. Similar is the finding given by the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 18.11.2008.
6. The question as to whether the workmen were getting a consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- per month or that would include basic salary, H.R.A., etc. was considered by the Labour Court as well as by the learned single Judge. The Labour Court, while coming to a definite conclusion that the workmen were getting Rs.5,000/- per month, which does not include H.R.A., etc., the learned single Judge also noticed that no evidence was produced by the Management to show that the workmen were getting salary of Rs.2,500/- plus other allowances, the total of which comes to Rs.5,000/-. In Ex.P.1 which was produced by the workmen, it was shown that they were getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- alone. In the other exhibit, viz. Ex.R.2 which was produced by the Management, it was shown that H.R.A. and C.C.A. etc. were also paid to them, but it was disbelieved by the Labour Court as it was not signed.
7. In these facts and circumstances, there being a concurrent finding of fact, this Court is not inclined to sit in appeal over the same or to re-appreciate the evidence and give a different finding. There being no merit, the writ appeals are dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 in each writ appeal are closed.