M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in this case have challenged the order dated March 27, 1997 of the learned presiding officer, labour court, madikere. The controversy was within a very narrow ambit in so far as the applicant who has since died, claimed that he had been employed as a night watchman of the respondent-society and that he was originally employed from September 20, 1970 for a period of six months and was continued for about 10 years without any other change of status. Originally, the dispute was with regard to the correctness of his being retired insofar as the respondent-society contended that he had attained the age of 58 years whereas, the decision came to be challenged and the applicant was able to establish that his correct age was 56 years 10 months as a result of which he was eligible for the service benefits for the balance period of 1 year and 2 months. We are not really concerned with that dispute because the present challenge is under Section 33-c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act wherein the workman has contended that he was employed as a night watchman between the hours of 7. 30 p. m. And 9. 30 a. m. And according to him, he was also required to work on rest days and therefore, he has submitted an application for payment of the overtime wages. At the hearing, the respondent conceded his claim as far as the payment of bonus and provident fund are concerned and therefore, the heads (c) and (d) of the award do not require to be gone into. The real dispute is with regard to the overtime wages that have been computed under the heads (a) and (b) and the petitioner who has challenged the award has contended that the authority was not justified in having conceded this claim because there was no material to indicate that the applicant had worked overtime during this period. The society had relied on the registers maintained by it which are r1, r2 and r3 and these consisted of the daily wages payment registers and the attendance register and the submission was that these documents did not justify the claim for overtime. The society had relied on the registers maintained by it which are r1, r2 and r3 and these consisted of the daily wages payment registers and the attendance register and the submission was that these documents did not justify the claim for overtime. Furthermore, the contention raised was, that the claim is a belated claim in so far as it was not put forward in the first instance when the original dispute in relation to the age was agitated. I need to straightaway dispose of these objections because learned Advocate Mr. T. l. Ananda kumar who has appeared as amicus curiae and he is required to be complemented because i do find that he has studied the case extremely well in addition to which he has also researched the various points involved and submitted a compilation of decisions. The petitioners have submitted, and perhaps very rightly, that the initial dispute was with regard to the question as to whether the respondents were justified in having treated the applicant as having reached the age of retirement and only if and after this point is decided in favour of the workman can he come forward and ask for consequential benefits. While i do not dispute the correctness of the petitioner's argument that the two claims can be preferred in the alternative or as a consequential claim there is no bar to the workman once the first point is decided in his favour in re-approaching the authority for computation of the consequential benefits as a result of the earlier order having been in his favour. The bar of res judicata that has therefore been pleaded by the petitioner cannot be upheld. ( 2 ) AS far as the main controversy is concerned, the petitioner's learned Advocate drew my attention to the evidence on record and in particular, to the evidence of r. W. 1 who was the manager at the relevant time. It is true that he has stated that though the applicant was a night watchman that his working hours were from 7 p. m. To 6. 30 a. m. And not from 7. 30 p. m. To 9. 30 a. m. And he has reiterated this position in cross examination. It is true that he has stated that though the applicant was a night watchman that his working hours were from 7 p. m. To 6. 30 a. m. And not from 7. 30 p. m. To 9. 30 a. m. And he has reiterated this position in cross examination. What is important is that he has not said a single word with regard to the question as to whether or not the applicant was required to work on other days, namely, the rest days which is really the consequential component of the claim for overtime. Also, the difficulty in the way of the petitioner is that the applicant has given evidence and he has categorically averred that he used to work from 7. 30 p. m. To 9. 30 a. m. The next day. The applicant is a poor simple watchman who was employed on a meagre salary. He is an ex-serviceman and though he has been cross examined at length, his evidence has withstood the test of cross examination and in this background i see no reason why this evidence should be discarded. The applicant has also been supported and fully corroborated in his evidence by a. W. 2, b. d. Subbanna who has in turn stated that the applicant was working from 7. 30 p. m. To 9. 30 a. m. And that he was not given any holiday much less the weekly holidays. This evidence has hardly been shattered in cross examination. There is perhaps considerable justification in Mr. Anandkumar's submission that the material before the court has rightly been relied upon by the authority and that in the absence of the petitioner being able to demonstrate that the finding is either unjustified, incorrect or perverse that no interference is called for by this court. Among the two sets of evidences the authority has relied on the better evidence and even though I have reviewed the material i really see no ground on which the approach of the authority can be disputed. Among the two sets of evidences the authority has relied on the better evidence and even though I have reviewed the material i really see no ground on which the approach of the authority can be disputed. ( 3 ) THE respondent's learned Advocate has relied on a whole series of legal decisions in support of his submissions but i refrain from reproducing them in so far as the law on the point is well settled and the principles that are enunciated by the high courts and the Supreme Court in those decisions have been followed very correctly by the authority and by this court. On the material before me i see no ground for interference with the award. ( 4 ) MR. T. l. Anandkumar has submitted that, it is within the discretion of the court to award interest in appropriate cases. I do not dispute that position but one also needs to take into consideration the overall facts and circumstances and the status of the parties and on a consideration of all these, I am of the view that this is not a case in which any interest should be awarded. However, the litigation has gone on for a long-time. The original applicant has since passed away and it is his legal heirs who are now brought on record and i do not see why the beneficiaries should be put to any further hardship as far as recovery of the balance amount is concerned. I am informed that the bonus and the provident fund amount have been paid and the authority will verify whether this is the position. If those amounts were not paid then the respondents would be liable to deposit those amounts but if the said amounts have been paid then it is the balance amount that has to be deposited. Respondents to deposit this amount with the authority within an outer limit of 12 weeks from today. On deposit of the amount the authority is directed to pay over the same to the legal heirs of the original applicant. ( 5 ) THIS is a sad case in which the applicant having passed away and the lrs were in no position to engage an Advocate to contest the case. The learned Advocate sri. On deposit of the amount the authority is directed to pay over the same to the legal heirs of the original applicant. ( 5 ) THIS is a sad case in which the applicant having passed away and the lrs were in no position to engage an Advocate to contest the case. The learned Advocate sri. T. l. Anand kumar, has willingly agreed to appear as amicus curiae when this court requested him to do so, he has studied the case well and as indicated by me earlier he has done a good job on behalf of the poor litigants. The office is accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500. 00 as professional charges to the learned Advocate for having appeared as amicus curiae. ( 6 ) THE writ petition fails and stands dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .