Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Rai And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 May, 2013
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S.Saron
RA No.174 of 2003 in
CWP No.13487 of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RA No.174 of 2003 in
CWP No.13487 of 2002
Date of decision: 10.05.2013
Balwant Rai and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH
Present: Mr.I. P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the review applicant-
respondent No.3.
Mr. R. K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners-non-applicant.
Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, Addl. AG, Punjab for
respondents No.1 and 2-non-applicants.
S.S. SARON, J.
The petitioners Balwant Rai and fifty five others filed CWP No.13487 of 2002 for issuing directions to the respondents i.e. the State of Punjab; the Director, Local Bodies Government of Punjab and the Nagar Council, Batala Distt. Gurdaspur to extend to them the benefits of law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, Municipal Employees Union versus State of Punjab and others (Civil Appeal No.8434 of 1997 decided on 15.03.2000) reported in (2000) 9 SCC 432 . A further direction was sought for directing the respondents to grant the petitioners' the benefit of pay/wages for each Saturday and other Gazetted holidays on which they worked while their colleagues in the office were permitted to RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -2- enjoy as holidays. Besides, a prayer was made for grant of other consequential benefits and still further direct the respondents to continue to grant the aforesaid benefits to the petitioners in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2002. It was observed by this Court that while disposing of number of petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued various directions and modified the earlier order passed by this Court. The directions inter alia passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and referred to in the order dated 23.08.2002 passed by this Court are as follows:-
"1. That the employees, workman petitioners before the Supreme Court would be entitled to be given monetary benefit for working on Saturday by granting them extra wages for each of the Saturday of which they have shown to be discharged their duties.
2. Secondly, the petitioner should invoke proper proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purposes of proper computation in respect of the monetary benefit arising therefrom. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has given finality to the dispute between the parties."
It was further observed by this Court that the petitioners would be at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act-for short) as their right to receive RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -3- monetary benefits had already been settled by the highest court of the land. If the petitioners had performed their duties on Saturdays and Sundays then in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, their claim could hardly be refuted. In other words, it was observed that it appeared that the right of the petitioners stood settled and it was only consequential benefits in terms of money that was being denied by the respondents to the petitioners. Appropriate remedy in terms of the above judgment it was held was under the Industrial Disputes Act and it was hoped that the respondents would not compel the petitioners to take recourse to such procedural law. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
After the writ petition had been disposed of, respondent No.3-Nagar Council, Batala filed the present review application stating that the order passed by this court was an ex parte order without notice to the Nagar Council, Batala (review applicant/respondent No.3). Notice of the review application was issued.
Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the review applicant/respondent No.3 has contended that where there are rules and regulations requiring a workman to work on Saturdays and Sundays as well, the workman would not be liable to be paid for the work done on the said days. Besides, it is submitted that the order dated 23.08.2002 passed in CWP No.13487 of 2002 relates only to octroi staff and it does not cover other employees of the Nagar Council, Batala.
RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -4- In response, Mr. S. K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners- non-applicants has submitted that in terms of the directions passed in the case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others versus State of Punjab and others (supra) the said contentions stand already decided. It is submitted that the matter has also been further claified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sat Pal Puri versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 333.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The primary grievance of the review applicant/respondent No.3 is that in case where rules and regulations have been framed requiring a workman to work on Saturdays and Sundays, they would not be entitled for monetary benefits by granting them extra wages for the said two days. In Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind's case (supra) the only grievance in their case was that when Clerks and Peons were required to work at the octroi check post and barriers, they were not given the benefits of closed Saturdays which resulted in discrimination or denial of their right which accrued to the staff members similarly situated and who had a common employer, namely, the Municipal Committee concerned. The other more important question that was considered was as to whether the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service of respondent Municipal Committees who had a common employer, had a common seniority list and also a common pay scales, when required to work either at the octroi checkpost or in the office of the Municipal Committees, as the case may be depending upon the exigencies of RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -5- service in committees, can have an equal right to enjoy Saturdays as holidays and whether the right available to their entire cadre as such to enjoy such weekly holidays be denied only to a limited category of octroi staff, who, due to exigencies of service may, at a given point of time, be required to work not only in the offices but by rotation in the octroi checkposts or barriers. This question was delineated upon in following manner:-
"So far as this question is concerned unless there is any express provision in the municipal bye-laws requiring all the staff members to have six days' working per week, in our view, it would not be open to the respondent Municpal Committees to deny the benefit of non-working Saturdays only to those staff members who have because of the exigenceis of service to discharge their duties at octroi checkposts or barriers rather than in the offices. But that would require a further question as to whether at the relevant time at which the employees concerned like the appellants have actually worked on Saturdays, their colleagues in the offices had enjoyed such holidays and further whether the bye laws of the Municipal Committees concerned required the employees, by way of their service conditions, to discharge their duties for six days in a week and, therefore, it was open to the municipal authorities, looking to the exigencies and pressure of work to give some additional concession to only those office staff RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -6- members who would have been permitted not to come for work on any Saturdays. Therefore, all that we can lay down in the present proceedings is to the effect that if the appellants, at the relevant time at which they claim to have earned the right to enjoy holidays falling on Saturdays were made to work while their colleagues similarly situated like them, working in the offices of the Municipal Committees, were given the benefit of such holidays and when there were no bye laws requiring the employees to work for 6 days in a week, then they would be entitled to be given monetary compensation for the working Saturdays by grant of extra wages for each of the working Saturdays on which they are shown to have discharged their duties.(emphasis added) These questions cannot be resolved in the present proceedings and for that the appellants, if so advised, will have to be relegated to the remedy under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein all these questions of fact can be thrashed out.
But this claim of the appellants will be subject to the further rider that at the relevant time the government employees working under the different departments of Punjab State had got the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays in a given year as declared by the State Government in exercise of its administrative powers. It is not in dispute between the RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -7- parties that if in a given calender year the Punjab State employees had not enjoyed the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays then the appellant would not be entitled to make any such claim."
The above conclusions in the case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others versus State of Punjab and others (supra) were considered and followed by this Court in its order dated 23.08.2002, the review of which is sought. It was held that benefit of such holidays were to be given and when there were no bye laws requiring the employees to work for 6 days in a week, then the workman would be entitled to be given monetary compensation for the working Saturdays by grant of extra wages for each of the working Saturdays on which they are shown to have discharged their duties. Besides, in the case of Sat Pal Puri versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court further considered this very question and it was observed as follows:-
"In view of the fact that the technical staff of the Board are governed by regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the 1948 Act the appellants herein do not have any existing legal right so as to enable them to file an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We have noticed hereinabove that even in Municipal Employees Union's case (supra), this Court opined that the octroi staff could be entitled to the said benefit of non-working Saturdays and when required to work RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -8- on such Saturdays, were entitled to extra wages in lieu thereof, if they are not governed by any of the rule. In the case the appellants being governed by statutory rules, they would not be entitled to file applications under Section 33- C(2) of the 1947 Act." (Emphasis added) Therefore, it is quite evident that the question regarding work done by the petitioners employees as regards their claim for monetary benefits by way of extra wages for having worked on Saturdays and Sundays is to be raised and considered by the Tribunal under the Act in terms of Section 33-C(2) of the Act; besides, in case the employees are not entitled for the said benefit in view of statutory rules and regulations of bye laws of the Municipal Committees, it would be open to the Municipal Committees to raise the same before the Tribunal. Moreover, the claim of the workman for extra wages for working on Saturdays and Sundays is not limited only to the octroi staff but is applicable to all workman of the Nagar Council.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position which has already been delineated upon in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others versus State of Punjab and others (supra) and Sat Pal Puri versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others (supra), no further clarification or directions are necessary and the review applications are disposed of accordingly.
Mr. S. K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners has informed on the strength of the order passed by this court on 23.08.2002, the RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 -9- review of which is sought, the petitioners have already approached the Labour Court in terms of Section 33-C (2) of the Act and their claims are pending because of the pendency of the present review application. The Labour Court shall take up the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with the order that has been passed and since the matter has been delayed considerably it is hoped that the Labour Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
( S. S. Saron ) Judge ( S.P. Bangarh ) Judge 10.05.2013 A.Kaundal