UNION OF INDIA Vs. NARAYANA M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, in the present petition have challenged the judgment and order dated 3-11-1992 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Labour Court No. 2 in Application Nos. LC-2/173 to 191 of 1991 filed by the 19 workmen under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim overtime wages for the period from January, 1973 to November, 1979. Out of them three claims are for lesser period as indicated by the petitioners in their writ petition.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment and order the Labour Court has not actually computed the amounts of the overtime claims filed by the workmen individually. The Labour Court has merely reproduced the nature of the claims in the Cyclostyle Applications filed by the workmen, who have averred that they were entitled to overtime wages if they worked in excess of 104 hours in two weeks at 1? times upto 1-8-1974. Further the names of the trains are given to indicate that the individual workmen were booked for the respective trains. All the workmen have given the duty schedule, train schedule etc. Along with the applications all of them have done some common figure work to show the hours of overtime done by them during the period from 1973 to 1979. The Labour Court has finally held that on the basis of the rules the workmen were entitled to get overtime wages and it directed the administration of the petitioners to compute the actual overtime work done by each of the workmen and pay that total amount to Shri M. V. Anchan, their Advocate. 1-A. The petitioners have filed their written statement to oppose the applications, inter alia on the ground of inordinate delay in claiming the so-called overtime wages. The petitioners have flatly denied admissibility of the claims as all the workmen were paid overtime wages from time to time on the basis of the actual overtime work performed by them. The petitioners have maintained that no overtime wages were payable as claimed by the workmen.

(3.) THE workmen (applicants) did not lead any oral evidence in support of their claims. They did not produce any documentary evidence to show and substantiate their claim of actual overtime work done by them. Curiously they have relied on some oral evidence recorded by the Labour Court in some other applications filed by some other workmen against the petitioners. It is a fact that the petitioners had also agreed to read that evidence in the case of the present workmen. The petitioners, however, examined one of their officers, who deposed that the claim of the overtime was not maintainable as all the workmen were paid their overtime wages from time to time. He, however, candidly admitted that he was not in a position to say anything in respect of the period from 1973 to 1979 as at that time he was not in employment.