Judgment : ( 1 ) HEARD both sides in detail. ( 2 ) THE Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the management of Indian Iron and Steel company Limited challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated May 12, 2003 passed in CWJC No. 2464 of 1993 (R) holding that non-payment of certain amounts claimed by way of overtime to the workmen should be treated as contempt of Court and directing the management to see it that it was paid. The letters Patent Appeal was admitted and in the circumstances as we felt that it would be appropriate to call up the writ petition, CWJC no. 2464 of 1993 (R) also for being finally heard and disposed of along with the appeal, the writ petition was also called up and it has also come up for hearing along with the appeal. The management resisted the prayers in the writ petition CWJC No. 2464 of 1993 (R ). ( 3 ) IT is seen that an application was filed by the workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Central Government, labour Court No. II, Dhanbad in making a claim for amounts based on a tripartite agreement for overtime allowance agreed to be paid to them. The management resisted that application contending that no overtime was payable to the workmen concerned. The labour Court by Annexure 2 award allowed the claim of the workmen and directed the management to pay the amounts as per chart appended to that order. The management challenged that order in a writ petition. CWJC no. 924 of 1993 (R ). A Division Bench of this court held that the management was under obligation to pay the overtime as per the tripartite agreement. It noticed that a question of arithmetical calculation was involved to arrive at the amounts that may be payable by the management. The Division Bench, therefore, concluded the judgment with the following words:"we leave it open to the management to calculate the exact amounts payable to each and every workman concerned on the basis of the attendance registers and other allied registers maintained by the management, which would be the basis for payment in terms of the tripartite agreement. The management while making the payments shall also give an account of calculations to each of the concerned workmen. The management while making the payments shall also give an account of calculations to each of the concerned workmen. The order of the Labour Court is modified to that extent. " ( 4 ) IT may be stated that the Division Bench also noticed that they were passing that order with the consent of the parties. Thereafter, the management proceeded to issue an order dated 10/07/1993, marked Annexure-5 to the present writ petition, stating that on the verification of the 147 claim applications made by the different workmen, it was found that as per the attendance registers and other allied registers maintained by the management, none of them was entitled for any amount whatsoever by way of overtime as claimed by them. The management order was with a rider which reads as follows:"however, if any of the applicants in the said matter can prove his claim, he can do so by submitting his individual claim with documentary proof within two weeks. " ( 5 ) IT appears that the workmen did not respond to this order or take advantage of the opportunity given to individual workman to establish his claim for overtime before the management. But instead, the writ petition was filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the management to make payment of the dues as determined by the order passed by the Labour Court in L. C. Case No. 16 of 1989 as per the chart annexed as the said order has been confirmed by the High Court in cwjc No. 924 of 1993 (R ). ( 6 ) OBVIOUSLY, the prayer for directing the payment to be made as per the chart annexed to the order of the Labour Court originally made, cannot be granted, in view of the consent order passed by the Division Bench while dealing with the matter as quoted above. The amount was to be calculated by the management based on all the relevant materials. The management resisted the writ petition by contending that no amount was due to any workman as overtime on the basis of the books maintained and that no workman has responded to Annexure 5 or demonstrated that he, as a matter of fact, was entitled to be paid overtime for any particular period, day or hours. The management resisted the writ petition by contending that no amount was due to any workman as overtime on the basis of the books maintained and that no workman has responded to Annexure 5 or demonstrated that he, as a matter of fact, was entitled to be paid overtime for any particular period, day or hours. ( 7 ) WHILE the writ petition was pending, it is seen that a certificate proceeding was initiated and the Certificate Officer proceeded to direct the management to deposit the sum of money determined as due, apparently based on the chart annexed to the order of the Labour court. The management thereupon moved this court for staying the certificate proceedings initiated by the Certificate Officer by pointing out that the matter was pending before this court and the calculation was wrong in view of the direction of the Division Bench in the writ petition challenging the order of the Labour court passed on the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. This Court stayed the enforcement of the certificate or the order issued by the Certificate Officer. This Court thought that one way of resolving the dispute was to depute the Registrar and the Deputy registrar of this Court to go into the various registers maintained by the management and to calculate the amounts that are to be paid to the workmen. This Court therefore directed the labour Court to send up all the relevant records and registers to this Court and directed the committee of Registrars to go through the various Registers and other documents. The registrars got the various registers scrutinised by the Accounts Section of this Court and submitted what can be termed as a "chart" containing certain figures described as "total hours, Extra O. T. and Total hours" further confusing the already confused situation. Unfortunately, the Committee of the Registrars did not file any explanatory report explaining the various heads mentioned in the various registers. They also did not calculate what according to them were the amounts due by way of overtime to each one of the workmen. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioner representing the workmen contended that as regards Jitpur colliery, the entire records had not been sent up to this Court and, therefore, the Chart prepared by the Committee of registrars for calculating the payment of overtime is not correct or proper. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioner representing the workmen contended that as regards Jitpur colliery, the entire records had not been sent up to this Court and, therefore, the Chart prepared by the Committee of registrars for calculating the payment of overtime is not correct or proper. Learned counsel submitted that as far as Chasnala colliery is concerned, the report can be accepted and acting upon the report, the amount to be paid for overtime to the workmen for the time shown as total hours and extra overtime may be directed to be paid. Counsel for the management submitted that this submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the committee had ignored the terms of the tripartite settlement which provided for overtime in a particular month as for 20 hours. He further submitted that that the Committee did not indicate the total hours of overtime of the individual workman. He submitted that whether the workman was entitled to overtime on a given day would depend on the c form and going by the tripartite agreement, it depended on whether he had handed over the charge and for the purpose of handing over charge, he had to spend addition time in the mines and to work overtime. He submitted that this could be done only in terms of the tripartite settlement and according to the management, no amount was due to any of the workmen towards overtime. We find that unfortunately, the report made by the Registrars is not complete. It does not enable us to come to a definite conclusion one way or the other regarding the hours of overtime if any actually put in by individual workman. Not only that, it also ignores the effect of clause 3 of the tripartite Agreement. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the Committee of registrars got the records scrutinised and prepared the chart, the confusing picture that was already available continued to be confusing. We made an attempt, in view of the long pendency of the litigation to see, whether we could find a final solution to the problem but in vain. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the Committee of registrars got the records scrutinised and prepared the chart, the confusing picture that was already available continued to be confusing. We made an attempt, in view of the long pendency of the litigation to see, whether we could find a final solution to the problem but in vain. ( 9 ) ON comparing it with the m Register, it is not possible for us to come to a positive finding that the total hours referred to in the chart of the Registrars were the hours of overtime actually put in by the individual workman. Thus going by the Division Bench order Annexure-3, it appears to us that the calculation has to be primarily left to the management. In Annexure-5, the management has only blandly and generally stated that no overtime is due to any workman. Of course, the workmen did not individually try to establish that the said stand of the management was wrong. In that situation, we think that the proper course to adopt is to set aside as annexure-5, issued by the management and direct the management to verify from the records including the chart prepared by the registrar with reference to the terms of tripartite settlement and issue orders or notices to the individual workman informing or indicating therein the amount, if any, that may be due to him and in case no amount is found due indicating that fact. On receipt of such an individual notice or order, each one of the workmen has a right to file an objection to the stand adopted therein with reference to the relevant materials to establish that he is in fact entitled to overtime and showing the quantum. For that purpose the management will make available all the concerned registers and the concerned forms for scrutiny of the workmen, of course in the presence of a responsible officer of the management to ensure that there is no tampering. The management will take back the records from this Court and issue the individual notices or orders as expeditiously as possible and that will be done within three months of receipt of the documents from this court. The workmen will be entitled to make their objection to the notice within one month from the date of receipt of the individual notice to the concerned workman. The workmen will be entitled to make their objection to the notice within one month from the date of receipt of the individual notice to the concerned workman. The workman concerned will be given an opportunity to verify the Registers so as to enable him to file an effective reply or objection, if any. The management thereafter will pass speaking orders with reference to the relevant materials. If any amount is found payable, the management will promptly pay that amount to the workman without delay. If any workman is aggrieved by the ultimate decision taken by the management, it will be open to the workman to pursue any remedy that may be available to him under law. ( 10 ) IN view of these directions in the writ petition, no separate orders are necessary in the appeal except to set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 12/05/2001. The appeal will stand allowed to that extent. ( 11 ) THE writ petition will stand allowed to the extent indicated above. ( 12 ) THE Registrar of this Court will release the records soon. In view of our order aforesaid, the Certificate Officer is restrained from proceeding further in the certificate case or proceeding initiated by him. This will be without prejudice to the right of the workman to move him again if the circumstances warrant it or justify it. --- *** --- .