CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR. versus N. N. SARDESAI & ORS. on 20 July 2018

648

[2018] 6 S.C.R.

ACURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR.

v.

N. N. SARDESAI & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5152 of 2017)

BJULY 20, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 33-C(2) – Overtime wages– Claim for – Applications by employees claiming overtime wagesfor work claimed to have been done by them in discharge of theirCduties – Dismissed by the labour court – However, allowed by theHigh Court – Interference with – Held: Not called for since theemployees (total 17) are now no longer in service and have eitherretired from the service or died; the amount involved and awardedto the employees is not very sizable; it relates to the period fromD1986-1990; the amount was already paid long back to the employeespursuant to the impugned order; and it relates to the overtime workadmittedly done by the employees while on duty.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5152of 2017.

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2011 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 534 of 1997.

Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Ms. Madhu Sweta, Rohit Jain, Ms. AbhaR. Sharma, Vinay Navare, Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Ms. DeeplaxmiMatwankar, Ms. Gwen, R. Balasubramanium, Sachin Sharma, Advs.Ffor the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed againstthe final judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 534 of 1997 whereby theGSingle Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by therespondents herein and set aside the order dated 16.02.1995 passed bythe Labour Court and allowed the applications of the respondents.

2. It may not be necessary to set out the facts in detail except tothe extent necessary to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.

H

3. The question involved in the appeal is whether the High Courtwas justified in allowing the respondents’ (employees) writ petition andwas, therefore, justified in setting aside the order passed by the LabourCourt.

4. The appellants herein are body Corporate wholly owned byand working under the control of Ministry of Finance, Government ofIndia and had been specifically incorporated to take on the work ofprinting currency notes and minting of coins along with 7 other units.Their printing press is at Nashik(Maharashtra). The respondents (total17) at all relevant times were the employees of the appellants’ printingpress on different posts such as Junior Accounts Officer/HeadAccountants and Section Officers.

5. The respondents claiming to be the workmen of the appellantsfiled applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial DisputesAct,1947 before the Labour Court No. 2, Bombay (for short, “the LabourCourt”) against the appellants claiming overtime wages for the workclaimed to have been done by them in discharge of their duties for theperiod 1986 to 1990. The appellants on facts and law contested theseapplications.

6. By order dated 16.02.1995, the Labour Court dismissed theapplications. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed writ petition beforethe High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the order of theLabour Court.

7. By impugned order, the Single Judge allowed the respondents’writ petition and while setting aside the order of the Labour Court allowedthe respondents’ applications and granted them the monetary relief claimedtherein. It is against this order, the appellants (employers) have feltaggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal on morethan one reason mentioned hereinbelow.

9. First, all the respondents (total 17) are now no longer in serviceand have either retired from the service or died; Second, the amountinvolved and awarded to the respondents is not very sizable; Third, itrelates to the period from 1986-1990; Fourth, the amount, pursuant tothe impugned order, was already paid long back to the respondents; and A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Alastly, as mentioned above, it relates to the overtime work admittedlydone by these respondents (employees) while on duty.

10. In view of these five factual reasons, we are not inclined tointerfere in the impugned order of the High Court.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants (employers), however,Bargued several legal issues which, according to him, arise in the case.These submissions relate to interpretation of certain provisions of theBombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the Factories Act, 1948.

12. Keeping in view the five factual reasons set out above whichadmittedly emerge from the record of the case, we are not inclined toCexamine the legal questions urged by the learned counsel for the appellantsand consider it proper to leave these questions open for our decision ontheir merits in some other case.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and isaccordingly dismissed.D

Nidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.

E

F

G

H