THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1999 of 2008. Trilok Singh S/o Diwan Singh TM Operator Sapurji Palonji & Company Ltd. Sidcul Pantnagar Tata Motors Ltd. and two others. ......... Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Labour Department, Dehradun and three others. ......... Respondents Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Date November 14, 2008. P.C. : Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard. The only prayer made in this writ petition is that the respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners (copies Annexure No. 4 collectively to the writ petition) in separate cases under the Payment of Wages Act. According to the petitioners, they are working with the respondent nos. 3 and 4 from 2004 and 2003 respectively on the post of TCB Operator and JCB Driver. After interview, they were given appointment and they are continuously working in the company. In the year 2008, their services were dispensed with. Overtime work was being taken from the petitioners but they were not being given allowance on that count. The petitioners jointly made a complaint to respondent no. 2 and also to the management i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 4. Ultimately an agreement/settlement was executed between the parties as per provision of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. However, the petitioners were not paid any amount towards overtime work. The services of the petitioners were terminated and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 did not permit the petitioners to enter in the campus of the company. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed separate cases (PWA 2007 Trilok Singh Vs. Prabandhak Sapurji Palonji & Co. Ltd. Sidcul Pantnagar and others, PWA 2007 Lakhvinder Singh Vs. Prabandhak Sapurji Palonji & Co. Ltd. Sidcul Pantnagar and PA 2007 Gajendra Singh Vs. Prabandhak Sapurji Palonji & Co. Ltd. Sidcul Pantnagar under Payment of Wages Act 1936. Copies of memo of applications are annexed as Annexure – 3 (Collectively) to the writ petition. Since there has been delay in filing the applications, the petitioners have filed delay condonation application in each case. Copies of applications for condonation of delay have been annexed as Annexure No. 4 collectively to the writ petition. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the applications for condonation of delay are still pending and ends of justice would be served in the matter if a direction is issued to the respondent No. 2 to decide the applications for condonation of delay expeditiously and the writ petition may be disposed of today. Prayer is innocuous. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the applications moved by the petitioners for condonation of delay (copy Annexure No. 4 colly. to the writ petition) expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP