THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22673, 22674, 22680, 22780 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are employees of Chirala Municipality. It is stated that they are assigned duties of operating pump houses to supply water in the Municipality. They approached the Labour Court, Guntur, by filing miscellaneous petitions in the year 1998 – 1999, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), claiming salary for working beyond office hours, alleging that the 1st respondent is a factory, and that as per Section 59 of the Factories Act, the wages are payable for over-time work done by them. The Labour Court dismissed the petitions through separate orders dated 09-11-2005. The said orders are challenged in this batch of writ petitions. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the discussion undertaken by the Labour Court on the question as to whether the 1st respondent is a factory; is inconsistent, and that it ignored the law laid down in the precedents, in arriving at the conclusion, that the 1st respondent is not a factory. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the various provisions of law, and the precedents relevant to the subject. Sri S. Nageswar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the writ petitions are bared by laches, and they cannot be entertained at this length of time. The petitioners instituted the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, claiming over-time wages for working on Sundays, or on public holidays, under Section 59 of the Factories Act. The respondents, on the other hand, pleaded that the petitioners were being granted casual leaves and other categories of leaves, and whenever work was assigned on Sundays and holidays, compensatory leaves were granted. Objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the petitions, under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act. It is no doubt true that the Labour Court has undertaken extensive discussion by making reference to the relevant provisions of law and precedents, in arriving at a conclusion, that the 1st respondent does not answer the description of ‘factory’. Assuming that a different view is possible, the petitioners ought to have pursued the remedies with required amount of promptitude. The Writ Petitions are filed in the year 2011, challenging the orders passed in 2005. By any standard, five years of delay in approaching this Court cannot be overlooked. Learned counsel sought to submit that the laches cannot be a ground to deny the adjudication, involving the fundamental rights of a citizen. In the instant case, hardly any interpretation or enforcement of fundamental rights is involved. The petitions were filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. In terms of civil law, such an application is akin to a suit for recovery of money. It is not as if the petitioners are illiterates and are not conversant with the procedure, to enforce their rights. The writ petitions are barred by laches, and this Court is not inclined to entertain the same. They are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-08-2011. KO