1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 662/2008 (Smt. Trivenibai wd/o Late Shri Rambhau Bahadure and others vs. The Hon'ble Third Labour Court at Nagpur and others) ====================================== Shri N.W.Almelkar, Adv. for petitioners Shri Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for R-1 Shri V.D.Raut, Adv. for R-2 & R-3 CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2008 1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nagpur, in application IDA No. 189/1998. on 16th December, 2002, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. 2. By an application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioners had claimed the arrears of wages in view of the recommendations of Kalelkar Committee in lieu of promotion, in lieu of Public Holidays from 1.3.1984 till the date of filing of application, over-time wages for having worked for 6 extra hours from 1.3.84 and about half a dozen other items with effect from 1976 2 to 1984. 3. It was the case of the original applicant that the original applicant was working on C.R.T. with respondent Municipal Corporation. The present petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased original applicant. The claim of the original applicant was denied by the Municipal Corporation and it was denied that the applicant was posted on C.R.T. since 1977. It was denied that the applicant was entitled to the amount claimed in the application towards arrears of wages. 4. It was the case of the Municipal Council that after a notice for recovery of a substantial amount from the applicant was issued to the applicant, an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was filed by the original applicant. The Municipal Council stated that the claim of the original applicant was a stale claim and the application was liable to be dismissed. 5. On considering the evidence tendered by the parties, the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur, by the impugned order dated 16th December, 2006, rejected the application filed by the original applicant. 3 6. Shri Almelkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur, was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the claim was a stale claim and was also barred by the principles of res-judicata. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that during the pendency of this petition, in pursuance to the application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, it was informed to the petitioners by the authority under the Act that the employees of the Nagar Parishad were given the benefit of the weekly holidays, holidays on second & fourth Saturdays, National Holidays, surrender leave etc., in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this communication shows that the original applicant was entitled to weekly holidays, surrender leave, National Holidays, regional Holidays and holidays on 2nd & 4th Saturdays. The learned counsel for the petitioners restricted the claim to arrears claimed from the year 1984. 7. Shri Raut, learned counsel for the Municipal Council submitted that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application on the ground of delay & latches and was further justified in holding that the claims made by the original applicant were disputed 4 claims and were not substantiated by evidence and were, therefore, rightly rejected. 8. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Labour Court on 16th December, 2006. The application filed by the original applicant was dismissed not only on the ground of delay and latches, but also on merits. The Labour Court had observed that the documents produced by the original applicant were not proved and exhibited in accordance with law and the documents were doubtful documents which were not authenticated or countersigned by the authorities of the Municipal Council. The court observed that the documents also did not bear the signatures of the original applicant. The Labour court was further justified in observing that the original applicant was expected to examine independent witnesses in support of his claim that he was continuously working for 14 hours in a day, but there is no reliable evidence to show that he did overtime work for 6 hours everyday and that too in absence of express order or direction of the employer throughout his service period. By an elaborate order, the Labour Court rejected the application filed by the original applicant on merits as well as on delay & latches. 9. In the instant case, it appears that certain 5 proceedings were filed by the original applicant prior in point of time and the applications filed by him under Section 33 C (2) were allowed and he was paid compensation and overtime wages for certain period. In case the original applicant was not paid the overtime wages and compensation after 1984, the original applicant should have filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Act within a reasonable time. There is no reason afforded by the original applicant to justify the inordinate delay caused in making the application. The Labour Court rightly considered that fact that the application under Section 33 C (2) was filed by the original applicant in the year 1998 after a notice for recovery of an amount of Rs. 75,901/- was issued to him by the Municipal Council. There is no error whatsoever in the finding of the Labour Court that there was unreasonable delay in approaching the Labour Court. The Court also rightly rejected the application on merits as the claims were not substantiated by evidence. The Labour Court was justified in observing that the claims were disputed and there was no adjudication of the claims on merit and therefore, application under Section 33 C (2) was liable to be dismissed. 10. No fault can be found with the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioners cannot seek any 6 assistance from the communication issued by the authority under the Right to Information Act during the pendency of the petition, as the authority has merely answered that the Nagar Parishad employees were granted weekly 'off', holidays on 2nd & 4th Saturdays, National Holdias, surrender leave etc., during the period from 1980 to 2008 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules. This fact is not relevant in this case, as the question is not about the grant of holidays or leave to the other employees, but as has been observed by the Labour Court and also by this Court in the earlier part of this order that the original applicant had failed to prove and substantiate his claim made in the application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of the evidence. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit