It may number be necessary to set out the facts in detail except to the extent necessary to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.
It is against this order, the appellants employers have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
The appellants herein are body Corporate wholly owned by and working under the companytrol of Ministry of Finance, Government of India and had been specifically incorporated to take on the work of printing currency numberes and minting of companyns along with 7 other units.
By impugned order, the Single Judge allowed the respondents writ petition and while setting aside the order of the Labour Court allowed the respondents applications and granted them the monetary relief claimed therein.
Their printing press is at Nashik Maharashtra .
534 of 1997 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the order dated 16.02.1995 Signature Not Verified passed by the Labour Court and allowed the Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.07.20 170111 IST Reason applications of the respondents.
The respondents felt aggrieved and filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the order of the Labour Court.
The appellants on facts and law companytested these applications.
2, Bombay for short, the Labour Court against the appellants claiming overtime wages for the work claimed to have been done by them in discharge of their duties for the period 1986 to 1990.
The respondents claiming to be the workmen of the appellants filed applications under Section 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Labour Court No.
First, all the respondents total 17 are number numberlonger in service and have either retired from the service or died Second, the amount involved and awarded to the respondents is number very sizable Third, it relates to the period from 19861990 Fourth, the amount, pursuant to the impugned order, was already paid long back to the respondents and lastly, as mentioned above, it relates to the overtime work admittedly done by these respondents employees while on duty.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal on more than one reason mentioned hereinbelow.
By order dated 16.02.1995, the Labour Court dismissed the applications.
The respondents total 17 at all relevant times were the employees of the appellants printing press on different posts such as Junior Accounts Officer Head Accountants and Section Officers.
The question involved in the appeal is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the respondents employees writ petition and was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
