JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondent no. 1, Shri Birendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and perused the material available on record. 2. The U.P. Road Transport Corporation has preferred the present writ petition assailing the validity of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 04.05.2016. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 was a Conductor in the petitioner's corporation and superannuated in the year 2006. He had filed a claim before the Labour Court stating that from July, 2003 to December, 2004, he was not given the overtime amounting to Rs. 54,965/-. In the said claim, it was stated that till July, 2003 whenever he had worked for overtime, he was granted the said allowance but for his services between July, 2003 to December, 2004 despite having worked and was entitled to be paid overtime the respondents denied the payment and accordingly, moved an application under Section 33 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming the admissible dues from the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared before the Labour Court but did not file any objections to the claim. During the proceedings, the Labour Court had directed the petitioner to produce the record pertaining to the service rendered by the workman/respondent no. 2 but despite the orders passed, no such documents were filed by the petitioner and otherwise it was submitted that all the documents had been destroyed. 4. The workman/respondent no. 2 on the other hand, had filed all the documents and registers demonstrating that from July, 2003 to December, 2004, he had worked for overtime and he was entitled for the same and considering that there was no contrary evidence or material filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court allowed the claim and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.54,965/- as the overtime admissible to the employee. The petitioner while assailing the order of the award submits that the said order is arbitrary and inasmuch as, the claim of workman does not fall within the circular dated 22.04.2003 and only when the bus had run for more than 350 kilometers in a day and more than 700 kilometers for two consecutive days, the overtime is allowed. The petitioner while assailing the order of the award submits that the said order is arbitrary and inasmuch as, the claim of workman does not fall within the circular dated 22.04.2003 and only when the bus had run for more than 350 kilometers in a day and more than 700 kilometers for two consecutive days, the overtime is allowed. It is stated that for two days the bus in which he was performing his duties had run for 616 kilometers. Apart from this fact, there is no other material to contest the claim of the employee. No other arguments were raised for assailing the said order. 5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. 6. From the impugned award, it is clear that the workman had filed all the documents pertaining to his employment from July, 2003 to December, 2004 indicating that he was entitled for to be paid overtime as per the circular of the petitioner. Despite contesting the said case and appearing before Labour Court, the petitioner did not file any written submissions or any evidence to contest the claim of the workman. 7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that after considering the aforesaid facts, the Labour Court has allowed the claim holding that the workman was entitled for the overtime claimed by him. Even if for a moment, the objections of the petitioner are considered, there was no material to indicate that for the entire period from July, 2003 to December, 2004 the bus in which he was performing the duties had not run for more than 350 kilometer in a single day and 700 kilometers for two consecutive days as no document or register was filed in support of their contention. There is no material even before this Court to hold that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and deserves interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In light of the above, the arguments raised by the petitioner are rejected. 9. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.03.2017 where the application preferred by the petitioner for review of the award dated 04.05.2016 was rejected. The said review was rejected on the ground that the Labour Court does not have any power of review nor the petitioner could indicate any such prayer existing in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.03.2017 where the application preferred by the petitioner for review of the award dated 04.05.2016 was rejected. The said review was rejected on the ground that the Labour Court does not have any power of review nor the petitioner could indicate any such prayer existing in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even before this Court the petitioner could not indicate that the Industrial Tribunal is vested with the power of review and accordingly as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur and others reported in 1987 (4) SCC 525 has held that unless the statutory authority is vested with the power of review, it cannot exercise the said power and consequently, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order dated 24.03.2017 rejecting the review of the petitioner. 10. The other facts, which have drawn the attention of this Court that the claim in the present case is for a paltry sum of Rs.54,965/-. For such a small amount, the petitioner is litigating before this Court for the last six years. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner was asked to respond as to whether there is any litigation policy in the corporation. Learned counsel for petitioner has fairly submitted that there is no litigation policy. 11. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is mandatory for all the corporations, which are running on commercial basis to have a litigation policy, which should clearly take into account the cost of litigation, and the matters which should be contested. The matters/cases, where the consequences or pecuniary liability is large then only should writ petition be filed against the statutory tribunals/authorities, they should refrain from challenging the routine orders or where the sum involved is small/insignificant, inasmuch as, the amount involved in litigation sometimes far exceeds, then the benefit, for which the petition has been filed by the corporation. 12. In light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, granted earlier, is hereby discharged. 13. The awarded amount may be paid to the workman/ respondent no. 2 expeditiously say within a period of six weeks from today.