Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, Western Railway Vs. Narayana M. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
industrial disputes act, 1947 - section 33c(2) - recovery of money due from employer - overtime wages - application made after 18 years - no proof or evidence in support of the claim - claim disallowed.;the object of the industrial disputes act was and is early and expedient settlement of industrial disputes and not to keep them alive for years or decades together. if that is done the whole purpose of the act would he defeated. the claim for overtime wages filed by the workmen in the year 1991 for the period from 1973 to 1979 cannot be encouraged. it must, be remembered that in the huge railway administration it becomes unmanageable to maintain and preserve such old records to meet such stale and old claims of the so-called overtime work. during such a vast period sea-changes take place. though there is no limitation prescribed under section 33c(2) of the act there is absolutely no explanation given by the workmen why they had kept quiet for a period of more than 18 years. a reasonable lapse of time, perhaps need not be explained. but when there is such an unreasonable delay in the lodgment of the claims it becomes the duty of the claimants lo put forward some plausible reason why they were interested to file such a claim after such a very long lapse of period. ordinarily the workmen are not expected to say anything about the period of habitation, however, the present is an extraordinary and unusual case of delay of 18 years, they are certainly hound to say something about such unusual delay in claiming overtime wages. there is not even a whisper in the application filed by the workmen to explain their conduct of filing the claim after the lapse of 18 years.;there is absolutely no material and evidence to hold that they are entitled to get the overtime wages. ordinarily no genuine claim waits for such a long period. the order of the labour court therefore, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside as there is absolutely no application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. there was no evidence and material before the labour court to grant the claim of the workmen. - section 10: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre, jj] admission to professional colleges - technical courses - publication of brochure on basis of which candidates seek admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of colleges held, for ensuring adherence to proper appreciation of an academic course, it is essential that the method of admission is just, fair and transparent. the first step in this direction would be publication of a brochure on the basis of which the applicants are supposed to aspire for admission to various institution keeping in mind their merit and preference of college. brochure, firstly has to be in conformity with law and the statutory scheme notified by the competent authority. it is a complete and composite document as it deals with the scheme for conducting their entrance examinations, declaration of results, general instructions and method of admission, etc. this brochure is binding on the applicants as well as the authorities. this brochure or admission notification issued by the state or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. there is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law. section 10: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre,jj] admission to professional colleges - technical courses - approval to additional seats or to start new course - cut off dates held, the settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. this rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. one of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. this can be illustrated by giving an example. college a which is running a professional course like engineering or mba etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. however, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the aicte and thereafter, the process is taken up by the state and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. these seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college a; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. none had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the court even it is put on the internet or given in the newspaper, the candidates of higher rank or meritorious candidates would not be able to avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial, have paid their fees and the courses have commenced. in that situation, for variety of reasons, they may not be able to take admission in the institution of their higher preference while the candidates of much lower merit will be admitted to that course. besides defeating the merit, it has been commonly noticed that the late admissions made by the colleges directly effect notified candidates who have questioned it more than often as their admission process is not so just, fair and transparent which has given rise to the litigation. it is also a kind of back door entry method. another serious consequence that result from such admissions is shortening of the academic courses in an undesirable manner. it is expected of other candidate selected to a professional course that he or she would complete the course in its entirety and not by missing more than a month or so in joining the said course. this results in lowering the excellence of education as well as harms the academic standard of professional education. admission to professional colleges: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre, jj] technical courses - held, in process of admission to professional colleges relating to technical courses, primarily three institutional bodies are involved. (i) all india technical council for technical education, (ii) state of maharashtra through director of technical education and (iii) university to which such institution is affiliated the role of all these institutions in distinct and different but for a common object. primary of the rule of all india council for technical education (aicte) is now well settled but that certainly does not mean that role of the state government and for that matter the university is without any purpose or of no importance. the council is the authority constituted under the central act with the responsibility of maintaining education standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over views of the state as well as that of the university. the concerned department of the state and the affiliating university has a role to pay but it is limited in its application. they cannot lay down any guidelines or policies which would be in conflict with the central statute or the students laid down a by the central body. state can frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the central body. while the state grants its approval and university its affiliation for increased intake of seats or commencement for a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the condition of approval granted by the central authority or council. what is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of proper imparting of education an ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and ensuring proper infrastructure for betterment of educational system. only if all these authorities work in a co-ordinated manner and with co-operation they would be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist admission to professional courses: [swatanter kumar, c.j.,a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre, jj] admission schedule - interference by courts held, all the expert bodies viz. aicte as well as directorate of education in consultation with the departments of the state regulating the process of admission and maintenance of standards of education had notified a legal binding document specifying dates and schedule for various matters in relation to admission of students and commencement of courses. there has to be so compelling circumstances and grounds before the court to interfere with the prescribed schedule. it is neither so arbitrary nor so perverse, keeping in view the essential features relating to imparting education to professional courses that it should invite judicial chastisement to the extent of laying down entirely new schedule. merely because there has been some delay on the part of either of these authorities to timely grant of either of these authorities to timely grant or decline approval and permission to commence a course per se would not be sufficient ground for disturbing the notified schedule and timely commencement of courses. - if that is done the whole purpose of the act would be defeated, in my opinion the claim for overtime wages filed by the workmen in the year 1991 for the period from 1973 to 1979 cannot be encouraged. i fail to understand how they could rely on some oral evidence of some other workmen in some other matter against the petitioners. i am not inclined to dismiss the petition only on that ground as the petition has been pending for final hearing from 1998 particularly when i am fully satisfied about the claim of the workmen for overtime being totally bogus and untenable. 10. i fail to understand why the file is required from table to table as submitted by thelearned counsel for the petitioners.orderr.j. kochar, j.1. the union of india through the general manager, western railway, in the present petition have challenged the judgment and order dated november 3, 1992 passed by the presiding officer of the central government labour court no. 2 in application nos. lc-2/173 to 191 of 1991 filed by the 19 workmen under section 33-c(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 to claim overtime wages for the period from january 1973 to november, 1979. out of them three claims are for lesser period as indicated by the petitioners in their writ petition.2. by the impugned judgment and order the labour court has not actually computed the amounts of the overtime claims filed by the workmen individually. the labour court has merely reproduced the nature of the claims in the cyclostyle applications filed by the workmen, who have averred that they were entitled to overtime wages if they worked in excess of 104 hours in two weeks at 1 1/2 times upto august 1, 1974. further the names of the trains are given to indicate that the individual workmen were booked for the respective trains. all the workmen have given the duty schedule, train schedule etc. along with the applications all of them have done some common figure work to show the hours of overtime done by them during the period from 1973 to 1979. the labour court has finally held that on the basis of the rules the workmen were entitled to get overtime wages and it directed the administration of the petitioners to compute the actual over-time work done by each of the workmen and pay that total amount to shri m.v. anchan, their advocate.3. the petitioners have filed their written statement to oppose the applications, inter alia, on the ground of inordinate delay in claiming the so-called overtime wages. the petitioners have flatly denied admissibility of the claims as all the workmen were paid overtime wages from time to time on the basis of the actual overtime work performed by them. the petitioners have maintained that no overtime wages were payable as claimed by the workmen.4. the workmen (applicants) did not lead any oral evidence in support of their claims. they did not produce any documentary evidence to show and substantiate their claim of actual overtime work done by them. curiously they have relied on some oral evidence recorded by the labour court in some other applications filed by some other workmen against the petitioners. it is a fact that the petitioners had also agreed to lead that evidence in the case of the present workmen. the petitioners, however, examined one of their officers, who deposed that the claim of the overtime was not maintainable as all the workmen were paid their overtime wages from time to time. he, however, candidly admitted that he was not in a position to say anything in respect of the period from 1973 to 1979 as at that time he was not in employment.5. on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and evidence on record the labour court has decided the claims in favour of the workmen.6. i have heard both the learned advocates for their parties and i have also carefully gone through the proceedings. the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present petition on november 3, 1998 to challenge the impugned order dated november 3, 1992, exactly after six years. shri ramamurthy, appearing for respondent no. 1 workman has made a serious grievance before me that the petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches, and therefore, it deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. on the other hand shri suresh kumar appearing for the petitioners, conceded that there was a delay of six years in challenging the impugned order of the labour court, however, he did not go to any length to justify the delay caused by the concerned officers at various tables and departments of the railways. he pointed out that there were number of stations wherein there were number of station masters to take their own decisions and give green signal to the matter to proceed further. he has however pointed out that if the petitioners were guilty of laches and delay even the workmen are not free from such blemish. he has put his finger on the fact that the workmen filed their applications to claim overtime wages for the period between 1973 to 1979, in the year 1991 after about a period of 18 years. shri suresh kumar expressed his genuine problem that after lapse of about 18 years it was impossible for the administration to trace and locate the relevant record of assignment of duties and the period of overtime put in by each of the workmen. he further submitted that generally such record is destroyed after 10 years or is not traceable at all in the deep ocean of the railway administration. he further pointed out that in the huge complex of the administration of the railways the work force keep on changing periodically and it is more often that no relevant record is available and no material witnesses can be traced or located. he however, positively asserted that overtime wages are paid at the relevant period and there was no delay in making such payment and that was the reason why the workmen did not feel any urgency and need to file applications promptly or within a reasonable period or expeditiously.7. in reply to the second objection of shri ramamurthy that except the respondent no. 1 workman the petitioners have not served the rule nisi on the other workmen individually, shri suresh kumar submitted that in the applications filed by the workmen before the labour court they did not give their address at all and they had given only names. all of them had authorised shri m.v. anchan, the advocate, to act and appear on behalf of them. he further pointed out that the said shri anchan was served a copy of the writ petition on behalf of all the workmen and he had received the same on behalf of all the workmen for whom he had appeared before the labour court. shri suresh kumar pointed out that even the labour court had directed the petitioners to make payment under the said order to shri anchan on behalf of the workmen. in this peculiar circumstance, says shri suresh kumar, that it should be deemed that the respondents were served and were defended by shri ramamurthy. shri ramamurthy, however, vehemently asserted that he was appearing only for one of the workman i.e. respondent no. 1 and not for the others. shri anchan, who was present in the court was also not able to furnish the addresses of the workmen for whom he appeared before the labour court. shri ramamurthy further submitted that only one copy of the petition was served on shri anchan and not as many as 19 sets were served to indicate that the service of the petition was on behalf of 19 workmen. technically shri ramamurthy might be right. in the facts and circumstances very peculiar to this case i have considered the merits of the matter, after hearing shri ramamurthy, who confines his appearance only to respondent no. 1 and not the 19 workmen. the claim of the workmen was common, the advocate defending the workmen was common, and the judgment and order given by the labour court was also common. in the high court however taking the advantage of the great handicap of the petitioners shri ramamurthy and shri anchan both have adopted a very unfair and technical attitude.8. there is no doubt about the proposition of law that there is no period of limitation prescribed under section 33-c(2) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 to claim money/benefits from the employer. a workman can file such application even after 50 years claiming over time wages for the overtime work done by him while in the service of the employer, 50 years back. theoretically reading the letters of law one would be right to opine that there is no limitation provided for in the said provision and the courts cannotlegislate or read any law of limitation in the said section. in my opinion the intention and purpose of the legislature in not providing for limitation is that if the workman claims his dues such as difference in wages or other amounts while in employment he would jeopardise his employment itself. it was therefore contemplated that if a workman applies for his dues within a reasonable period the claim should not be denied only on the ground of delay. the intention was -that no real, bonafide and genuine claim should suffer merely because there is some time lag. i am sure that the legislature by not prescribing the limitation intended to encourage stale and old claims to be raked up after decades. we also must realise the object of the industrial disputes act was and is early and expedient settlement of industrial disputes and not to keep them alive for years or decades together. if that is done the whole purpose of the act would be defeated, in my opinion the claim for overtime wages filed by the workmen in the year 1991 for the period from 1973 to 1979 cannot be encouraged. it must be remembered that in the huge railway administration it becomes unmanageable to maintain and preserve such old records to meet such stale and old claims of the so-called overtime work. during such a vast period sea-changes take place. though there is no limitation prescribed under section 33-c(2) of the act there is absolutely no explanation given by the workmen why they had kept quiet for a period of more than 18 years. a reasonable lapse of time, perhaps need not be explained. but when there is such an unreasonable delay in the lodgment of the claims it becomes the duty of the claimants to put forward some plausible reason why they were interested to file such a claim after such a very long lapse of period. ordinarily the workmen are not expected to say anything about the period of limitation, however, the present is an extraordinary and unusual case of delay of 18 years, they are certainly bound to say something about such unusual delay in claiming overtime wages. there is not even a whisper in the application filed by the workmen to explain their conduct of filing the claim, after the lapse of 18 years.9. it is very significant to note that the workmen have not adduced any oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their claims of overtime wages. none of the applicants workmen stepped in the witness box to prove their claims. they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove their case. they did hot even call upon the petitioners to produce the records such as their duty schedules etc. beyond filing the applications no efforts are taken by them to prove and substantiate their claims. i fail to understand how they could rely on some oral evidence of some other workmen in some other matter against the petitioners. there is no relation or connection between the matters. every case of overtime would differently stand on the different facts, on which the labour court will have to compute the amounts due. according to me, the workmen have merely taken a chance by filing the application to claim overtime wages. i am told that there are umpteen number of such cases filed by the workmen to claim overtime wages and such other untenable claims. it further appears that some unscrupulous officers permitted and encouraged such claims for their own selfish benefits. in such cases delay in challenging the orders in the higher forum inevitable takes place, as has happened in the present matter. there was absolutely no reason for the petitioners to take six years to challenge the order of the labour court. i am not inclined to dismiss the petition only on that ground as the petition has been pending for final hearing from 1998 particularly when i am fully satisfied about the claim of the workmen for overtime being totally bogus and untenable. there is absolutely no material and evidence to hold that they are entitled to get the overtime wages. in my opinion ordinarily no genuine claim waits for such along period. the order of the labour court therefore, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside as there is absolutely no application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. there was no evidence and material before the labour court to grant the claim of the workmen. i therefore allow the petition and make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). no order as to costs.10. i fail to understand why the file is required from table to table as submitted by thelearned counsel for the petitioners. the whole case file with the judgment must be placed before the highest authority who is empowered to take decision whether to proceed further in the matter if the decision is against the railways and to defend if the other side challenges the judgment against it. if this method is evolved the highest decision taking authority can be held responsible for the delay, laches or lapses. i am constrained to observe as such inordinate delays are taking place almost in all the cases and the patent and stock reason always put forward is the 'slow journey of the file from officer to officer and from table to table.' i, therefore, direct shri suresh kumar, the learned counsel to bring to the notice of the highest decision taking authority this judgment and i further direct such authority to consider and take appropriate decision in all the court, matters to streamline the administration in the matter of courts very tightly in the larger public interest.

Judgment:
ORDER

R.J. Kochar, J.

1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, in the present petition have challenged the Judgment and order dated November 3, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Labour Court No. 2 in Application Nos. LC-2/173 to 191 of 1991 filed by the 19 workmen under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim overtime wages for the period from January 1973 to November, 1979. Out of them three claims are for lesser period as indicated by the petitioners in their writ petition.

2. By the impugned Judgment and Order the Labour Court has not actually computed the amounts of the overtime claims filed by the workmen individually. The Labour Court has merely reproduced the nature of the claims in the Cyclostyle Applications filed by the workmen, who have averred that they were entitled to overtime wages if they worked in excess of 104 hours in two weeks at 1 1/2 times upto August 1, 1974. Further the names of the Trains are given to indicate that the individual workmen were booked for the respective trains. All the workmen have given the duty schedule, train schedule etc. Along with the applications all of them have done some common figure work to show the hours of overtime done by them during the period from 1973 to 1979. The Labour Court has finally held that on the basis of the rules the workmen were entitled to get overtime wages and it directed the administration of the petitioners to compute the actual over-time work done by each of the workmen and pay that total amount to Shri M.V. Anchan, their advocate.

3. The petitioners have filed their written statement to oppose the applications, inter alia, on the ground of inordinate delay in claiming the so-called overtime wages. The petitioners have flatly denied admissibility of the claims as all the workmen were paid overtime wages from time to time on the basis of the actual overtime work performed by them. The petitioners have maintained that no overtime wages were payable as claimed by the workmen.

4. The workmen (applicants) did not lead any oral evidence in support of their claims. They did not produce any documentary evidence to show and substantiate their claim of actual overtime work done by them. Curiously they have relied on some oral evidence recorded by the Labour Court in some other applications filed by some other workmen against the petitioners. It is a fact that the petitioners had also agreed to lead that evidence in the case of the present workmen. The petitioners, however, examined one of their officers, who deposed that the claim of the overtime was not maintainable as all the workmen were paid their overtime wages from time to time. He, however, candidly admitted that he was not in a position to say anything in respect of the period from 1973 to 1979 as at that time he was not in employment.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and evidence on record the Labour Court has decided the claims in favour of the workmen.

6. I have heard both the learned Advocates for their parties and I have also carefully gone through the proceedings. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Petition on November 3, 1998 to challenge the impugned order dated November 3, 1992, exactly after six years. Shri Ramamurthy, appearing for Respondent No. 1 workman has made a serious grievance before me that the petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches, and therefore, it deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. On the other hand Shri Suresh Kumar appearing for the petitioners, conceded that there was a delay of six years in challenging the impugned order of the Labour Court, however, he did not go to any length to justify the delay caused by the concerned officers at various tables and departments of the railways. He pointed out that there were number of Stations wherein there were number of Station Masters to take their own decisions and give green signal to the matter to proceed further. He has however pointed out that if the petitioners were guilty of laches and delay even the workmen are not free from such blemish. He has put his finger on the fact that the workmen filed their applications to claim overtime wages for the period between 1973 to 1979, in the year 1991 after about a period of 18 years. Shri Suresh Kumar expressed his genuine problem that after lapse of about 18 years it was impossible for the administration to trace and locate the relevant record of assignment of duties and the period of overtime put in by each of the workmen. He further submitted that generally such record is destroyed after 10 years or is not traceable at all in the deep ocean of the Railway Administration. He further pointed out that in the huge complex of the administration of the railways the work force keep on changing periodically and it is more often that no relevant record is available and no material witnesses can be traced or located. He however, positively asserted that overtime wages are paid at the relevant period and there was no delay in making such payment and that was the reason why the workmen did not feel any urgency and need to file applications promptly or within a reasonable period or expeditiously.

7. In reply to the second objection of Shri Ramamurthy that except the Respondent No. 1 workman the petitioners have not served the Rule Nisi on the other workmen individually, Shri Suresh Kumar submitted that in the applications filed by the workmen before the Labour Court they did not give their address at all and they had given only names. All of them had authorised shri M.V. Anchan, the advocate, to act and appear on behalf of them. He further pointed out that the said Shri Anchan was served a copy of the writ petition on behalf of all the workmen and he had received the same on behalf of all the workmen for whom he had appeared before the Labour Court. Shri Suresh Kumar pointed out that even the Labour Court had directed the petitioners to make payment under the said order to Shri Anchan on behalf of the workmen. In this peculiar circumstance, says Shri Suresh Kumar, that it should be deemed that the Respondents were served and were defended by Shri Ramamurthy. Shri Ramamurthy, however, vehemently asserted that he was appearing only for one of the workman i.e. Respondent No. 1 and not for the others. Shri Anchan, who was present in the Court was also not able to furnish the addresses of the workmen for whom he appeared before the Labour Court. Shri Ramamurthy further submitted that only one copy of the petition was served on Shri Anchan and not as many as 19 sets were served to indicate that the service of the petition was on behalf of 19 workmen. Technically Shri Ramamurthy might be right. In the facts and circumstances very peculiar to this case I have considered the merits of the matter, after hearing Shri Ramamurthy, who confines his appearance only to Respondent No. 1 and not the 19 workmen. The claim of the workmen was common, the advocate defending the workmen was common, and the judgment and order given by the Labour Court was also common. In the High Court however taking the advantage of the great handicap of the petitioners Shri Ramamurthy and Shri Anchan both have adopted a very unfair and technical attitude.

8. There is no doubt about the proposition of law that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to claim money/benefits from the employer. A workman can file such application even after 50 years claiming over time wages for the overtime work done by him while in the service of the employer, 50 years back. Theoretically reading the letters of law one would be right to opine that there is no limitation provided for in the said provision and the Courts cannotlegislate or read any law of limitation in the said section. In my opinion the intention and purpose of the legislature in not providing for limitation is that if the workman claims his dues such as difference in wages or other amounts while in employment he would jeopardise his employment itself. It was therefore contemplated that if a workman applies for his dues within a reasonable period the claim should not be denied only on the ground of delay. The intention was -that no real, bonafide and genuine claim should suffer merely because there is some time lag. I am sure that the legislature by not prescribing the limitation intended to encourage stale and old claims to be raked up after decades. We also must realise the object of the Industrial Disputes Act was and is early and expedient settlement of industrial disputes and not to keep them alive for years or decades together. If that is done the whole purpose of the Act would be defeated, In my opinion the claim for overtime wages filed by the workmen in the year 1991 for the period from 1973 to 1979 cannot be encouraged. It must be remembered that in the huge railway administration it becomes unmanageable to maintain and preserve such old records to meet such stale and old claims of the so-called overtime work. During such a vast period sea-changes take place. Though there is no limitation prescribed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act there is absolutely no explanation given by the workmen why they had kept quiet for a period of more than 18 years. A reasonable lapse of time, perhaps need not be explained. But when there is such an unreasonable delay in the lodgment of the claims it becomes the duty of the claimants to put forward some plausible reason why they were interested to file such a claim after such a very long lapse of period. Ordinarily the workmen are not expected to say anything about the period of limitation, however, the present is an extraordinary and unusual case of delay of 18 years, they are certainly bound to say something about such unusual delay in claiming overtime wages. There is not even a whisper in the application filed by the workmen to explain their conduct of filing the claim, after the lapse of 18 years.

9. It is very significant to note that the workmen have not adduced any oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their claims of overtime wages. None of the applicants workmen stepped in the witness box to prove their claims. They did not produce any documentary evidence to prove their case. They did hot even call upon the petitioners to produce the records such as their duty schedules etc. Beyond filing the applications no efforts are taken by them to prove and substantiate their claims. I fail to understand how they could rely on some oral evidence of some other workmen in some other matter against the petitioners. There is no relation or connection between the matters. Every case of overtime would differently stand on the different facts, on which the Labour Court will have to compute the amounts due. According to me, the workmen have merely taken a chance by filing the application to claim overtime wages. I am told that there are umpteen number of such cases filed by the workmen to claim overtime wages and such other untenable claims. It further appears that some unscrupulous officers permitted and encouraged such claims for their own selfish benefits. In such cases delay in challenging the orders in the higher forum inevitable takes place, as has happened in the present matter. There was absolutely no reason for the petitioners to take six years to challenge the order of the Labour Court. I am not inclined to dismiss the petition only on that ground as the petition has been pending for final hearing from 1998 particularly when I am fully satisfied about the claim of the workmen for overtime being totally bogus and untenable. There is absolutely no material and evidence to hold that they are entitled to get the overtime wages. In my opinion ordinarily no genuine claim waits for such along period. The order of the Labour Court therefore, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside as there is absolutely no application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. There was no evidence and material before the Labour Court to grant the claim of the workmen. I therefore allow the petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). No order as to costs.

10. I fail to understand why the file is required from table to table as submitted by theLearned counsel for the petitioners. The whole case file with the judgment must be placed before the highest authority who is empowered to take decision whether to proceed further in the matter if the decision is against the Railways and to defend if the other side challenges the judgment against it. If this method is evolved the highest decision taking authority can be held responsible for the delay, laches or lapses. I am constrained to observe as such inordinate delays are taking place almost in all the cases and the patent and stock reason always put forward is the 'slow journey of the file from officer to officer and from table to table.' I, therefore, direct Shri Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel to bring to the notice of the highest decision taking authority this judgment and I further direct such authority to consider and take appropriate decision in all the Court, matters to streamline the administration in the matter of Courts very tightly in the larger public interest.