CURRENCY NOTE PRESS vs. N.N.SARDESAI .

       REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5152 OF 2017 Currency Note Press & Anr.       .. Appellant(s) Versus N.N. Sardesai & Ors.            .. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.07.20 17:01:11 IST Reason: applications of the respondents. 1 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. 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 2 Accounts   Officer/Head   Accountants   and   Section Officers. 5. 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. 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 3 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 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 4 admittedly   done   by   these   respondents   (employees) while on duty. 10. In view of these five factual reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of the High Court.   11. Learned counsel for the appellants (employers), however, argued several legal issues which, according to him, arise in the case. These submissions relate to interpretation   of   certain   provisions   of   the   Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the Factories Act, 1948.  12. Keeping in view the five factual reasons set out above which admittedly emerge from the record of the case,   we   are   not   inclined   to   examine   the   legal questions   urged   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellants   and   consider   it   proper   to   leave   these questions   open   for   our   decision   on   their   merits   in some other case. 5 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.             …..………………………………J.      (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) .………………………………..J  (S. ABDUL NAZEER) New Delhi, July 20, 2018 6