Employees are entitled to claim interest on delayed payment of overtime wages under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the delay is not their fault and the cause of action arose during their employment.

JUDGMENT

G. S. Kulkarni, J. - These are four Writ Petitions which raise common issues of facts and law in mounting a challenge to the orders passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court No.II at Mumbai (for short 'Industrial Tribunal') whereby the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes act,1947 (for short 'the ID act'), have been dismissed.

2. The facts in all the four petitions are quite similar. For convenience, the facts of Writ Petition No.8129 of 2009 are required to be noted. The petitioner in the present case was formerly employed as a 'First Class Coach attendant', in the Commercial Department of the respondent-Railways. In the year 1989, he filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C(2) of the act claiming overtime wages from the respondent.

3. The said application of the petitioner was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal by an order dated 30 September 1992 whereby the Industrial Tribunal ordered the respondent railways to pay to the petitioner overtime wages of Rs.49828.35. Such amount was to be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the said order. The amounts are different for the other petitioners.

4. The respondent, however, failed to comply with the said orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal and later on after lapse of about six years of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1955 of 1998, which came to be dismissed by this Court by an order dated 10 February 2000. Respondent thereafter filed a Writ appeal before this Court being appeal No.311 of 2002, assailing the orders passed by the Single Judge, dismissing their writ petition. The said writ appeal(s) as filed by the respondent also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by an order dated 23 april 2002.

5. Despite the Division Bench dismissing the respondent's writ appeal(s), the respondent with impunity failed to comply with the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and make payment of overtime wages due to the petitioner since the year 1992. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such adamant conduct on the part of the respondent, filed a contempt petition before this Court alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as also by the appeal Court.

6. The petitioner has stated that this Court had taken cognizance of such conduct of the respondent and notices were issued to the respondent in the contempt proceedings. Only thereafter, on 14 March 2003 the respondent finally paid an amount of Rs.49,828.35 as awarded to the petitioner by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 30 September 1992. Thus, the respondent made the petitioner wait for a period of almost 11 years to receive the benefits of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

7. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the respondent, the petitioner, as permissible in law, filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal on 11 august 2003 under Section 33C(2) of the ID act claiming interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30 September 1992, namely the date on which the Industrial Tribunal allowed the petitioner's application under Section 33-C(2), till the date of filing of the said application.

8. The Industrial Tribunal by the impugned order dated 14 august 2008 has rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID act interalia observing that the petitioner was not entitled to claim interest as the relationship of the petitioner and that of the respondent was not of a workman and employer, as contemplated under the act for the reason that the petitioner was a pensioner when the said application was filed and thus, he was not entitled to any interest on the delayed payment of overtime wages. It was also observed that since the petitioner had not pressed for interest in the earlier proceedings before