( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner and Mr. Rathod for the respondent. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rathod waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The respondent herein was lastly working as Assistant Traffic Inspector under the petitioner-Corporation before he retired in July, 1989. The respondent initially joined as a conductor and was subsequently promoted to that post and there is no dispute between the parties that he was a workman at all material times within the definition of the concept under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After his retirement in the month of July 1989, he filed an application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being Recovery Application no. 810 of 1990 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, and in that application he claimed certain over-time payments which were not paid to him during the years 1977-89.

( 2 ) WHEN notice was issued to the petitioner-Corporation, they filed a statement in the Labour Court. As against the claim of the workman to the tune of Rs. 1,52,410. 00, they accepted the liability to the tune of Rs. 49,098. 25. Two tabulated statements to that effect signed by the Divisional Controller (Research) were filed by the petitioner in that behalf. Those statements were accepted by the respondent-workman. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court entertained that application to the extent of Rs. 49,098. 25 and directed the petitioner-Corporation to pay that amount with interest at the rate of 10% from 22-3-1990, that is the date of the filing of the application. The petitioner-Corporation has challenged that award dated 25-2-1997 by filing this petition which is also filed belatedly on 3/03/1998.

( 3 ) MR. Munshaw. learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the claim of the workman was a belated one and ought to have been rejected on the ground of laches. He relied upon the judgment of single Judge of this Court (Calla, J.) reported in 1996 (2) GLH 161 : [1996 (3) GLR 835] in the case of ESI Scheme v. Natwarlal Amrutlal Shah. In that case, the application for over-time had been filed under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Act belatedly and there was a delay of 17 years in filing that application and no explanation was given for filing it except that the workman was not much educated and had no knowledge of law. That application had been entertained by the learned Judge of the Labour Court and that order came to be quashed in the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned judge held, "the proceedings under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act initiated in the year 1990 in respect of overtime for the period from 1973 to 1986, therefore, should not have been entertained by the Labour Court merely because the Limitation Act is not applicable unless it could come to the conclusion that the delay has been reasonably explained. " In the present case also the overtime for the period 1977-89 is sought to be claimed by filing an application in the year 1990. When one peruses the judgment of the learned single Judge, there is a reference to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Gas Company v. Gopal Bhiva, reported in AIR 1964 SC 752 and it is stated, ". . . . . support was sought to be taken from earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Gas companys case (AIR 1964 SC 752) holding that the claim which was barred by time under the Payment of Wages Act can be made under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act. Thus, this decision also does not lay down any such proposition of law that the case where no limitation is prescribed the party can approach or initiate proceedings under Sec. 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act at any time without explaining the delay. " With due respect to my brother, he has not noted the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court. in Para 13 of that judgment