CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR. versus N. N. SARDESAI & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 20-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR.
v.
N. N. SARDESAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5152 of  2017)
JULY 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 33-C(2) – Overtime wages
– Claim for – Applications by employees claiming overtime wages
for work claimed to have been done by them in discharge of their
duties – Dismissed by the labour court – However, allowed by the
High Court – Interference with – Held: Not called for since the
employees (total 17) are now no longer in service and have either
retired from the service or died; the amount involved and awarded
to the employees is not very sizable; it relates to the period from
1986-1990; the amount was already paid long back to the employees
pursuant to the impugned order; and it relates to the overtime work
admittedly done by the employees while on duty.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5152
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2011 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in  Writ Petition No. 534 of 1997.
Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Ms. Madhu Sweta, Rohit Jain, Ms. Abha
R. Sharma, Vinay Navare, Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Ms. Deeplaxmi
Matwankar, Ms. Gwen, R. Balasubramanium, Sachin Sharma, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. 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. 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 passed by
the Labour Court and allowed the applications of the respondents.
2. It may not be necessary to set out the facts in detail except to
the extent necessary to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 648
648
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
3. 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.
4. The appellants herein are body Corporate wholly owned by
and working under the control of Ministry of Finance, Government of
India and had been specifically incorporated to take on the work of
printing currency notes and minting of coins along with 7 other units.
Their printing press is at Nashik(Maharashtra). 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.
5. The respondents claiming to be the workmen of the appellants
filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947  before the Labour Court No. 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 appellants on facts and law contested these
applications.
6. By order dated 16.02.1995, the Labour Court dismissed the
applications. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed writ petition before
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the order of the
Labour Court.
7. 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. It is against this order, the appellants (employers) have felt
aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
8.  Having heard the learned counsel 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.
9. First, all the respondents (total 17) are now no longer in service
and have either retired from the service or died; Second, the amount
involved and awarded to the respondents is not very sizable; Third, it
relates to the period from 1986-1990; Fourth, the amount, pursuant to
the impugned order, was already paid long back to the respondents;  and
CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR. v. N.N. SARDESAI & ORS.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
lastly, as mentioned above, it relates to the overtime work admittedly
done by these respondents (employees) while on duty.
10. In view of these five factual reasons, we

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.