JUDGMENT R.B. Mehrotra, J. - By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order, passed by the Central Government Industrial Labour Court, Kanpur dated 30.1.87. The Labour Court has allowed the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and has directed the petitioners-employer to pay a sum of Rs. 32,738-70 paise along with interest at the rate of 15% from 30.3.78 till date of its final payment. 2. The facts necessary for the decision are that Sri R. S. Verma (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') moved an application for computation of money benefit amounting to Rs. 32,738-70 paise along with 18% compound interest on account of over time work between 17.8.61 to 11.3.78. The case of the workman is that he worked as conductor during the above period as a Special Ticket Examiner for the period 12.1.64 to 11.3.78, during which he too performed over time work beyond statutory hours of limit of work, but he was not paid over time despite repeated submission of bills for payment of the same and when the claim was not settled through normal channel the workman represented Central Industrial Relations Machinery (for short C.I.R.M.), Kanpur. The liability was discussed before the said machinery between the workman and the representative of the railway administration. The C.I.R.M. recorded the factual position and left it to the workman to seek remedy for nonpayment of the wages. Consequent thereto, the workman moved an application under Section 33-C (2) before the Central Government Industrial Labour Court, wherein the workmen furnished the proof of his over time work by filing over time bills and his diary maintained tor doing his duty. 3. The application was contested by the Railway Administration mainly on the ground that the claim is belated and the workman has preferred the belated claim when the entire records have been destroyed. The Management has also taken general plea that the claim is belated and whatever over time bills were prepared, were paid and no complaint was received from any corner regarding non-payment of over time bills. The Management has also denied any meeting of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Railway Management. The Management has also taken general plea that the claim is belated and whatever over time bills were prepared, were paid and no complaint was received from any corner regarding non-payment of over time bills. The Management has also denied any meeting of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Railway Management. Lastly, the Management has objected that the workman has raised this dispute after seven years of his retirement, when he received all his dues and at a time when all the relevant records have been weeded out. 4. The Central Government Industrial Labour Court in the impugned order has disclosed m detail various documents filed by the workman and came to the conclusion that the workman has succeeded in showing by filing the photo copies of Annexure-7, 7-A to E that he had been submitting over time bills right from 1964 till about the date of his retirement The Management has failed to show that any of these claims were ever paid to the workman. The management has admitted in written statement Annexure 2 that T.T.Es. are treated as other running staff and are entitled to four, periodical rests in a month and the programme to be so prepared in case that they are not required to work duty of head quarter for more than two or three days. The workman has deposed that he has prepared all over time bills from his T.T.Es. diary prepared from the roster of duty given to them and the actual duty performed has been noted in his diary. One of such bills was produced in the court during the course of cross-examination and the workman gave satisfactory reply to the cuttings therein. 5. The Labour Court has further recorded a finding that the Railway Management could have verified the veracity of the over-time bills and the claim made by the workman from the register of abstract and bills passed, which is required under the rules, to be maintained permanently in the account department. The railway Management could have shown it from the aforesaid accounts that the workman had obtained his payment. The railway Management could have shown it from the aforesaid accounts that the workman had obtained his payment. In the absence of Railway Administration producing any such register the claim of the workman, which is supported by the documents filed by him and the statement of the management officials given before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), is believed that the workman has been held to be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 32,738.70 paise. 6. The Labour Court also recorded a finding that no limitation has been provided for moving an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, the contention of the Railway Management that the application has been moved after considerable delay, has no force. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 8. Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the Railway Administration has challenged the impugned order on two grounds. 9. Firstly, the claim of over time relates to a period between 17.8.61 and 11.3.78 and the claim was made after lapse of seven years some time in the year 1985. As such the claim is highly belated and the Labour Court committed an error in allowing such a belated claim, Secondly, an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be allowed, unless some tribunal or authority has adjudicated the claim. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent workman Sri D. P. Singh refuted the aforesaid submission and contended that there is no time limit prescribed for moving application under Section 33-C(2), the claim cannot be rejected on the basis of being belated. 11. Secondly, the claim of the workman regarding overtime did not involve adjudication of any dispute, as under the rules, the workman was entitled to get the over time only by simple calculation. The Industrial Tribunal was perfectly in its competence to compute the claim of the workman on the basis of documents on record. 12. I have given a careful consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. The Industrial Tribunal was perfectly in its competence to compute the claim of the workman on the basis of documents on record. 12. I have given a careful consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. Under sub-paras 7 and 8 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual's para 3506 it is laid down that the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Regional Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner of the Central Industrial Relations Machinery have been appointed as supervisors under Section 71-G of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and the officers are authorised to visit and inspect relevant records of any railway station, shed and other offices within their jurisdiction. The railway board have agreed that they can visit and inspect the relevant records of the stations, shed and other offices in their jurisdiction and bring the irregularities, if any, noticed by them to the notice of the railway Administration for their rectification. On receipt of such report, the divisional office should be ensured that irregularities have been correctly reported by the central Industrial Relations Machinery and have been corrected accounted for. 14. The workman while working as conductor/TTE was given link programme which he noted in his diary and followed the same and any change in the link programme was also noted in the diary. At times that link programme was very lengthy and inviolative of provisions of hours of employment regulation. The workman along with other co-workman had complained to the Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow and General Manager, who required the sub-officers to check violations. The matter came up before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kanpur in series of meetings between central Industrial relations Machinery as supervisors of the Railway Labour and the Railway Management. The findings were given by the C.I.R.M. infavour of workman, but no heed was paid as such, it is clear from the record that the workman had been complaining of his non-payment of over time bills right from the very beginning, but the Railway Administration turned a deaf ear towards these complaints. In the aforesaid background, the workmen cannot be blamed for making a belated claim. In the aforesaid background, the workmen cannot be blamed for making a belated claim. On a minute scrutiny of the evidence, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the claim of the workman for over time bills was justified and the railway administration was under obligation to maintain a permanent record of the bills, passed by the Administration. The Railway Administration has miserably failed to prove that any over time bill of the workman was ever paid to him at any earlier point of time. All these findings are findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and do not call for any interference in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The two contentions raised by Sri Lalji Sinha also have no merit. In an application under Section 33-C (2), no time limit is prescribed. As such, the claim of the workman cannot be defeated only on the ground that it was made seven years after workman's retirement. The second contention of Sri Lalji Sinha that it is condition precedent for allowing an application under Section 33-C (2) that an independent adjudication should be made by some authority or officer is also ill-founded. 15. Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under : "33.-C.Recovery of money due from an employer. xx xx xx xx (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government (within a period not exceeding three months). "Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit)." 16. In Magnese ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha, 1991 (62) FLR 75 (SC) considering the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held. In Magnese ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha, 1991 (62) FLR 75 (SC) considering the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held. "In the present case there was no dispute regarding the rates of wages and it is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The workman demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied the same to the workman on extraneous consideration. Under the circumstances the remedy under Section 20 of the Act was not evaluative to the workmen and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." 17. Under the aforesaid provision, the Labour Court was required to consider whether the workman was entitled to receive the money from the employer and whether such money was capable of being computed. In the present case the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the workman was entitled under statutory rules to receive the over time bills and amount for such over time was capable of being computed on the basis of the relevant rules. The Labour Court has computed the same and has recorded a finding that the workman is entitled for the amount claimed for. No separate adjudication was required in the facts of the present case. As such, the second contention of Sri Lalji Sinha has also no force. 18. Since all the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel have failed, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. 19. The interim order granted by this Court on 2.9.87 is vacated. The half of the amount due under the impugned order deposited by the petitioners shall be withdrawn by the respondent No. 2 and the remaining half of the amount shall be recoverable from the petitioners in accordance with law.