Judgment :- Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Challenge in these petitions is to the legality of a common judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (in short 'Tribunal'). Applicants before Tribunal were store staff attached with the Naval Base, Cochin and were broadly classified as Civilian Employees in the Navy. Following an earlier decision rendered in OA K-58/88 holding that an employee belong to the category of non-industrial workman, should be entitled to over-time allowance in the event of being made to work for more than the prescribed period of forty hours a week, allowed the applications. 2. Challenged in these applications is that earlier decision had not properly dealt with the issue. 3. It is fairly accepted by learned counsel for petitioners that earlier decisions of Tribunal dealing with identical issue were not interfered with by Apex Court It is submitted that dismissal of Special Leave Petition (in short 'SLP') is not disposal on meats. 4. It is a well settled principle of law that when an SLP is summarily dismissed under Art 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'), by such dismissal Apex Court does not lay down any law, as envisaged by Art.141, of Constitution. Dismissal of SLP in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that by necessary implication, the contentions raised in SLP on merits of the case have been rejected by Supreme Court. (See: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 SC 1780). The effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal of an SLP without anything more indicating grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where SLP should be granted. Where reasons are given, decision becomes one which attracts Art.141 of Constitution which provides that the law declared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. It, therefore, follows that when no reason is given, but an SLP is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by Apex Court under Art.141 of Constitution. (See: Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association, v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334 & C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 625). 5. (See: Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association, v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334 & C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 625). 5. In view of the fact that Civil Appeal itself was dismissed and not SLP as contended, we do not accept the stand of petitioners that Apex Court had not considered relevant aspects. There is difference between dismissal of SLP and dismissal of Civil Appeal. Question whether Apex Court had considered the relevant aspects or not cannot be decided by us in these Original Petitions. Above being the position, we do not entertain the Original Petitions which are dismissed.