UNION OF INDIA Vs. P S PANSORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, the Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway, have challenged the impugned orders of the Central Government Labour Court No. 2 passed on 5-2-1996, as Judgment Part-I and on 3-6-1996, as Judgment Part-II, in Application No. LC-2/2 to 5 of 1992 filed on 17-1-1992 by the respondent No. 1 the railway servant, who claimed overtime wages for the period from September, 1975 to August, 1979. The total claim was Rs. 46,997. 15 as far as this railway servant is concerned. Along with the aforesaid respondent No. 1 there were three other railway servants, who are before me as respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who had also filed similar applications under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim overtime wages from December, 1975 to November, 1983, from January, 1968 to December, 1982 and from October, 1967 to January, 1980 respectively.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that as far as the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, they had not contested their claim before the Labour Court and they had not filed their computations as directed by the Labour Court under its judgment Part-I. The petitioners have impleaded them as respondents for the purpose that they were also directed to file their computations under the Judgment Part-I. It is therefore clear that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had not filed their computations before the Labour Court and therefore, their claims were not granted and it is therefore, deemed that they have abandoned and given up their claims. The present petition is being contested only by respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE petitioners had filed their written statement to oppose the claims of all the four railway servants. They had challenged the maintainability of such applications on the ground of very old, stale and time barred claims. The petitioners have categorically stated in the written statement that the alleged claims of overtime were not at all admissible and maintainable and that the railway servants were paid their over time dues as and when they were admissible in accordance with the rules. The respondent No. 1 had filed his affidavit in the form of oral evidence and he was cross-examined. The petitioners had also filed an affidavit of their officer.