UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM PAL SINGH K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions challenge the order of the Labour Court passed while dealing with the applications under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). These applications were filed by the workmen for overtime during the half period at outstations. These writ petitions are being disposed of together by this common judgment as they challenge the same order.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 581 of 1999 has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway (hereinafter referred to as the employer) against an individual workman-Rampal Singh. Writ Petition No. 573 of 1999 is a cross petition by the workman. Writ Petition No. 1375 of 1999 is a petition filed by 16 workmen against the employer challenging the same order of the Labour Court.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows : the workmen were appointed as first class coach attendants but asked to work in air-conditioned coaches on long distance trains. The workmen were not paid overtime wages which they were entitled to for the period that they were halting at outstations while on duty. They had already claimed overtime for the halt period for an earlier period which had been allowed by the Labour Court in such cases. Despite such orders being passed by the Labour Court and being confirmed by this Court, the employer did not care to abide by the orders and refused to pay overtime wages for the half at outstations. The workmen, therefore, filed applications under section 33-C (2) of the said Act and averred in the said applications that they were entitled to overtime wages in accordance with the Railway Boards letter dated 11-6-1974. Each workman in his application mentioned the period for which he had claimed overtime wages i. e. , between the period January, 1980 to December, 1995. The employer resisted these claims of the workmen by contending inter alia, that Railways are not an industry and that the application under section 33-C (2) of the said Act is not maintainable as there was no existing right in favour of the applicant workmen to claim overtime wages; that in view of the Railway Boards letter dated 27-6-1985 regarding computation in duty hours of air-conditioned coach attendants, the workmen were not entitled to the paid overtime; that the record pertaining to the period claimed was destroyed by the employer and, therefore, the employer was not in a position to verify the claims of the workmen and that the claims were barred by delay and laches.