Allahabad High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs S.B. Agnihotri And Anr. on 19 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: [1991(61)FLR677], (1991)IILLJ603ALL
JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J.
1. Sri S.B. Agnihotri, respondent No. 1 was Chief Goods Supervisor, Kanpur Central Goods Shed. He moved an application before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court) under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment in lieu of working on statutory weekly rest during the period from June, 1975 to June, 1977 and also compensation in lieu of working on the rest days. The Labour Court by its award dated August 11, 1986 has allowed the claim of the workman. The Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the workman worked on 82 Sundays and remaining 4 Sundays were spent in Journey after attending the Court duty. It was further held that the workman has also worked on the rest days. Relying on Sec. 67 of the Railways Act and the Employment Rules the Labour Court has held that the workman is entitled to sum of Rs. 6,960/-As this payment ought to have been made during the period from June 1975 to June 1977, the Labour Court awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 18%.
2. This award of the Labour Court has been challenged on three grounds, namely, (i) that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence regarding the working on Sundays and rest days (ii) the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to award interest at the rate of Rs. 18%; and (iii) the application of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is barred by time.
3. The finding recorded by the Labour Court regarding the working on Sundays and rest days is a finding of fact, which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and joint inspection report. This is a finding of fact, which has been correctly arrived at by the Labour Court and cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Regarding the second plea about the award of interest at the rate of Rs 18% of the Labour Court is concerned, it is clear from the record before this Court that the workman had been making representation after representation right from 1977 for making payment for working on Sundays and rest days; but the Railways did not take concrete steps for making payment and giving only evasive reply. This amount accrued to the workman on Sundays and rest days on which he worked. The Railways have withheld the payment unfairly. Equity demanded that the workman should have been paid interest for unlawfully withholding the amount of the workman. In any case, as the award of interest is quite equitable and reasonable, I am not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. As regards the third plea regarding the delay in making the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, no limitation has been prescribed by the statute for making such an application. In fact it is the Railways who are responsible for the delay, because inspite of the repeated representations made by the workman, they were not taking any concrete steps but only giving evasive reply. In the absence of any statutory provisions providing for a limitation for making an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the application of the workman cannot be said to be time barred.
6. The writ petition, as such, has no merit and is dismissed with costs.