Judgment : The petitioner challenges an order dated 1.3.2005, passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), in M.P.No.1 of 1995. Respondents 2 to 8 (for short "the respondents") are working as Pump Operators, in the erstwhile Uppal Kalan Municipality, which had since become part of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. They filed M.P.No.1 of 1995, claiming certain amounts, towards difference of wages and allowances, including the overtime wages, for their duties on Sundays and public holidays, for the period between 1.3.1987 and 30.6.1993. On an earlier occasion, the Tribunal passed an order, dated 24.5.1996, holding that the respondents are entitled to be paid the over time wages, in case, they worked on Sundays and public holidays, subject to the condition that they must not have remained absent on any day, for the rest of six days, in the week. As regards actual computation of the amount, the Tribunal directed the Municipality, to verify the record and extend the benefit. The Municipality filed W.P.No.13258 of 1997, assailing the orders of Tribunal. The writ petition was dismissed. Thereupon, the Municipality filed W.A.No.56 of 1998. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the computation of the amount ought to have been undertaken by the Tribunal, itself. The matter was accordingly remanded to the Tribunal. After the remand, the Tribunal awarded various amounts towards the overtime wages, for the work done by the respondents on Sundays and public holidays. The petitioner contends that the Tribunal did not undertake any verification, worth its name, and it has simply awarded wages for all the Sundays and public holidays, through out the year, for the entire period. It is also contended that no reliable evidence was placed by the respondents, in support of their contention. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that they have been compelled to work on all the Sundays and public holidays, for ensuring proper supply of water. It is urged that the Municipality took the plea that the Attendance Registers for the relevant period were destroyed, and the evidence adduced by them proved their claim. Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is just unimaginable that the respondents have worked for 365 days, in an year, and that too, continuously for six years. Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is just unimaginable that the respondents have worked for 365 days, in an year, and that too, continuously for six years. He submits that the claims are individual in nature, and except one respondent, no other witnesses have deposed before the Tribunal, much less they have placed any evidence. Sri K. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the claims of his clients are uniform and identical in nature, and in that view of the matter, common evidence was adduced. He contends that the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have admitted that continuous duties were assigned to the respondents, to ensure proper supply of water. He contends that the Tribunal had taken the evidence on record, into account, and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel points out that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with by the High Court, when no error of jurisdiction, or violation of procedure, is established. In the earlier round of litigation, finality was added to certain important aspects. The plea of the respondents that the unit, in which the respondents are working, is not an industry, and the application under Section 32-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"), is not maintainable, was negatived. The principle that a worker shall be entitled to be paid double the charges for his work, on Sundays and public holidays, provided that he did not remain absent in any part of the concerned week, was also laid. The only area left to be considered was about the computation of the period and the corresponding wages. In its earlier order, the Tribunal required the Municipality itself, to verify the record and extend the benefit to the respondents. A Division Bench of this court took the view that such a course is impermissible. An application under Section 32-C(2) of the Act is comparable to an execution petition. It must contain the details of the claim and the basis, thereof. In the context of the claim made by the respondents, it was obligatory on their part, to mention the particulars of Sundays and public holidays, on which they worked. In addition to that, they were required to prove that they did not remain absent on any day, for the corresponding week. In the context of the claim made by the respondents, it was obligatory on their part, to mention the particulars of Sundays and public holidays, on which they worked. In addition to that, they were required to prove that they did not remain absent on any day, for the corresponding week. Once the picture is clear on these aspects, computation of wages was almost a ministerial act, particularly when there was no dispute, as to the quantum. Though the respondents figured collectively as parties, in one petition, their claims are individual in nature. It is difficult to imagine that all the employees in a particular organization would have the same pattern of attendance, or duties. It was squarely for each of the respondents, to state the number of Sundays and public holidays, on which they worked, and to prove that they did not remain absent on any day, in the corresponding week. When this is the requirement of law, the record discloses that only one witness had deposed on behalf of all the seven respondents. Even he did not submit individual particulars of attendance of the other employees, or that of his own. A perusal of the appendix of evidence discloses that individual particulars were not at all brought on record. On the other hand, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner, and Exs.M-1 to M-26, comprising of Log Books, Muster Rolls, Service Registers and Salary particulars, were filed. The Tribunal had undertaken extensive discussion, mostly about the entitlement of the respondents to be paid the overtime wages. The only discussion on the issue, as regards which the matter was remanded, runs as under: " ... After the case was remanded, the petitioners and respondent have been directed to file detailed statements of the number of public holidays, Sundays in the period claimed, i.e. from March 1987 to June 1993 and wages not paid. I record here the abstract filed by the petitioner which when checked is almost all correct with a little difference here and there." It is not only surprising, but also curious to note that the Tribunal proceeded, as though all the respondents have worked on all the Sundays and public holidays, for six years. I record here the abstract filed by the petitioner which when checked is almost all correct with a little difference here and there." It is not only surprising, but also curious to note that the Tribunal proceeded, as though all the respondents have worked on all the Sundays and public holidays, for six years. It may not be an exaggeration to say that even a machine of highest quality cannot work uninterruptedly, for such a period, and requires to be stopped for periodical repairs or over-handling. On their part, the petitioner furnished the particulars of the number of Sundays and public holidays, on which the respondents have worked, which ranged from 72 (respondents 2 and 8) to 234 (respondent No.3). However, the Tribunal has not only brushed aside these particulars, but also evolved a formula of its own, with the following observation: "...Then I have made calculations here for every month by applying the following formula: The wage/salary of the month X number of Public holidays/ Sundays X 2, 30 days in a month. My calculation reveal the abstract is common to all the seven (7) petitioners, since it was not disputed that all the petitioners having worked in the period claimed i.e. from March 1987 to June 1993." Ultimately, it awarded a sum of Rs.29,633/-, to each of the respondents. This court is of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal is untenable, both on account of factual inaccuracies, and the application of formula, which does not have any legal backing. Strictly speaking, the order is liable to be set aside, and the matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal. This court is of the view that the claim itself has become old by two decades. When it was put to the learned counsel for the parties, as to whether the claim can be restricted to 50%, to give a quietus, they have agreed for it. While granting an interim stay, this court has imposed a condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the amount covered by the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed, and the order passed by the Tribunal is modified, to the extent that respondents 2 to 8 are entitled to half of the amount, awarded to each of them. There shall be no order as to costs.