Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Corporation Patiala vs Presiding Officer Labour Court And Ors on 23 August, 2017
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 23.08.2017
CWP No.4088 of 2015
Municipal Corporation, Patiala through its Commissioner
...Petitioner
Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: For the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Committee/Municipal
Council; Punjab Mandi Board; Nagar Council; Punjab Water
Resources Management & Development Corporation Ltd.
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate;
M/s T.S.Gujral & Harsh Chopra, Advocates;
Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Advocate;
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate;
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate;
Mr. Rajveer Singh Parmar, Advocate;
Mr. R.S.Modi, Advocate;
Mr. Ashok Kumar Bazaz, Advocate;
Mr. P.S.Thiara, Advocate;
For the State of Punjab:
Mr. Ajaib Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab;
Mr. Rahul Verma, AAG, Punjab;
For the workmen:
Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate;
Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate;
Mr. Aseem Rai, Advocate;
Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate;
Mr. Ravi K. Mattoo, Advocate;
Mr. G.P.Vashisht, Advocate;
Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate;
Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate;
Mr. Harpal Singh, Advocate, for
Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate;
Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate;
Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate;
1 of 55
::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:15 :::
2
CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate;
Mr. K.L.Arora & Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocates;
Mr. V.K.Shukla, Advocate;
Ms. Manjari Joshi, Advocate;
M/s Sandeep Khunger & Shakti Mehta, Advocates;
Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate;
Ms. Shallie Mahajan, Advocate, for
Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate;
Mr. G.P.Vashisht, Advocate;
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The question, whether extra pay for working during weekends on Saturdays, is generally a matter of agreement between the employers and their employees in private law. The position in public service with public law element is vastly different dependant on statutory rules, instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution or on bye-laws and regulations of local bodies and agencies of State governing the subject.
The right vigorously claimed and hotly disputed at the same time in this batch of 476 cases* is pro and contra for payment of wages for working on Saturdays. The right if enforceable by computation of money under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short the "Act"] has to be operated as per the settled law since the five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled in the celebrated case titled Central Bank of India Ltd Vs. P.S.Rajagopalan, AIR 1964 SC 743, defining the scope and amplitude of Section 33C(2) of the Act. The sine qua non of which power is the existence of a right to receive money due from an employer in denial mode which is due and capable of being computed in terms on money, which right is apparently free of doubt, clear, categorical and free from any long-winded forensic debate at the Bar. Also it is a duly documented claim which has been wrongfully denied by the employer in order to enable Labour Court to exercise its 2 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 3 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters jurisdiction to declare and execute the right by computation in terms of money, as in execution proceedings from a decree, and hold unflinchingly in favour of the claimants of rights already established. This is unlike the respondent workers in many of these petitions, who are employed by the municipalities in Punjab etc. to work in the field in capacities of "workmen" while holding permanent jobs as members of the Field Staff as differentiated from Office Staff in the same organization/s. One set comprising cadres of manual, skilled and technical workers while the other in sedentary office jobs. If cadres are separate in strength and the arrangements make no allowance for rotational transfers and postings from one to the other group, then the legal solution is simple in determination of the dispute, which is to go by the number of working days in a week required by rules of bye-laws to be served, viz., 5 days or 6 with Sunday off. If the staff is interchangeable from field to office or vice versa then the equality principle will apply and payments for working an extra day beyond five day week enjoyed in offices as held in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.), Sirhind & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, (2000) 9 SCC 432 (for short 'Sirhind' case). This judgment formed the sheet anchor of the claim for compensatory wages for working on Saturdays before the Labour Court and presently before this Court as well.
A large number of petitions have been filed by various Municipal Councils/ Corporations and by the State of Punjab or against it/them, challenging the impugned orders passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and other Labour Courts under Section 33C(2) of Act vide which the Presiding Officers have accepted the applications and directed the petitioners-municipalities-corporations to make good compensatory payments to the Field employees for working on Saturdays in view of the judgment 3 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 4 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Octroi employees, the Court confronted by a freak situation arising out of Punjab Government policy setting up Octroi tax posts on the State and National highways to collect revenue when faced with an acute shortage of independent manpower to meet the demands.
That was a device never to be repeated till policy changed and the system was abandoned. These cases involve "workmen" employed in the departments of the State of Punjab, local bodies such as Municipal Committees and Corporations and the Punjab Mandi Board.
Since the factual position is almost similar in all the cases, therefore, the factual matrix of one writ petition from the Bunch bearing CWP No.4088 of 2015 titled "Municipal Corporation Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court" is taken for the purpose of disposal of the matters which can easily be decided by a common order as the issue is common in all of them and can be disposed of by a single judgment as agreed by counsel appearing for the parties.
Cases involving Municipalities The challenge in the present petition is with respect to an order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (for short "the PO/LC") under Section 33C(2) vide which the Labour Court has allowed the application filed by the workman for claiming wages for working on Saturdays along with interest on the sum determined with interest running at the rate of 6% per annum till payment.
The respondent workman is a Mali (Gardner) employed by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala. He presented an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the PO/LC on the basis of the judgment dated 4 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 5 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 14.02.2008 passed by the Supreme Court in Sirhind case (supra). The Supreme Court while disposing of the appeals specifically held that the workmen must establish their legal right in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act.
To discharge the burden of proof the workman stepped into the witness box and submitted his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief.
During the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that "I am working in the field from the date of my joining. I have not moved any application to the Respondent for giving me extra wages for Saturdays, it is also submitted that my post is not transferable in the office. It is also admitted that the Committee has not given extra wages for Saturday for rest of the field staff." (P-3, Pg-39 of paper-book) The Petitioner, Municipal Corporation produced as its witness a Supervisor, namely, Gora Lal as MW-1 who deposed that the workman was engaged as a Mali and from his initial appointment he is working in the field and the post of the field staff is not inter-transferable with the office staff. The Field Staff receives extra benefits such as washing allowance, shoe allowance, uniform allowance, cycle allowance, etc. According to the Government of Punjab vide its Circular No.6/10/93-6PP 111/20107 dated 03.11.1993 circulated in all the Municipal Councils/ Corporations vide No. J.M/ANKA(2) 74/9775 dated 02.03.1994 (Ex.M1), the Office Staff who work in the offices of the Punjab Government are entitled to holidays on Saturday and Sunday. The employees working in the field posts are entitled only for a holiday on Sunday. Thus, the Field Staff is not entitled for two days holiday in a week as per the above said letter.
5 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 6 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters Mr. Soni appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned PO/LC has in Para. No.7 (P-4, Pg. No.44 of paper-book) specifically noticed the circular Ex.M1 but has returned no finding at the time of passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 and this a serious lacuna in the impugned order which had direct and material bearing on the result of the case.
The learned PO/LC has further in Para. No.13 (P-4, Pg. No.46 of paper-book) of its order relied upon a circular of the Government of Punjab dated 06.09.1979, in which it was notified that all the Government "offices"
throughout the State of Punjab be observed as holidays on all Saturdays of every month instead of the 2nd & last Saturday. The working hours in these offices shall be from 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM, with half an hour break from 1.30 PM to 2.00 PM.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the municipality that the learned PO/LC has ignored the fact that the above mentioned Circular was only with regard to closure of government offices in the State of Punjab but for the Field Staff it was clarified vide Ex.M1 that "The employees who are working in the fields, they are entitled only for Sunday holiday." Thus, the field staff is not entitled for two days holiday in a week as per above said letter of Punjab Government.
The Learned PO/LC while deciding the application has blindly taken shelter of the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Sirhind case without properly culling out and applying its ratio, says Mr. Soni. The labour Court has ignored the findings of the Supreme Court recorded in Para No.7 & 8 in the judgment which were confined to matters indicated as under:-
6 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 7 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters "7. We may mention at the outset certain well established and not disputable facts pertaining to the service conditions of the appellants.
8. The Appellants are employees of the respondent- Municipal Committee being peons belonging to Class-IV service and clerks belonging to Class-III service. It is also well established on the record that there is a common seniority of clerks and peons maintained by the concerned Municipal Committee and their pay scales also same. It is now found by the High Court and for which there cannot be any controversy that the octroi staff could be rotated vis-à-vis the staff in the offices of concerned Municipal Committees. Therefore, the only grievance is that when the clerks and peons are require to work at the octroi check posts and barriers they are not given the benefit of closed Saturdays which according to them results in discrimination or denial of their right which accrues to al the staff members similarly situated and who have the common employer, namely, the concerned Municipal Committees."
The Supreme Court framed the following issue in Sirhind case to be determined by it:
"Whether the clerks and peons working at octroi checkposts and barriers run by the respondent Municipal Committees concerned constituted and functioning under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act') are entitled to be paid for each of the Saturdays on which they worked at the octroi check-posts and barriers while their colleagues in the offices of the Municipal Committees concerned were permitted to enjoy those Saturdays as holidays."
While answering the aforesaid issue, the Supreme Court held that since the benefit of such weekly holiday or day off was denied only to a limited category of the Octroi staff, who; due to exigencies of the service may, at a given point of time, be required to work only in the offices but by rotation in 7 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 8 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters the Octroi check posts or barriers for collection of revenue for the State and therefore, a legal right had vested in these categories of employees by reason of interchangeability and rotation of postings from office to field or the other way round and thus to avoid unfair discrimination arising out of posting orders judgment was rendered and it was further held as under:
"18. Under these circumstances the relief which is granted to all these appellant-employees by modification the High Court's order will be as under:-
1. The appellants, by filing appropriate applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may, on proper computation, be entitled to get extra wages for each of the Saturdays of which they might have worked while their colleagues in the offices of the Municipal Committees had enjoyed benefit of Saturdays provided- the 52 Saturdays in a given calendar year were enjoyed by the employees of the State Government.
2. Even if the State Government employees had enjoyed the said benefit during the relevant calendar year but if the Municipal Committees had promulgated, at the relevant time, any bye-law under which the working conditions of the staff members were uniformly prescribed to be six days in a week, then, the question of granting any monetary benefit to the appellants would not survive. On the other hand if there was no such bye-law at the relevant time, then the appellants would be entitled to claim wages for the Saturdays on which they have actually worked when their colleagues in the offices had not worked and had enjoyed benefit of closed Saturdays."
The Supreme Court specifically directed the Appellants therein who were employees of the Octroi Department of the Municipal Councils/ Municipal Corporations to move applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act for proper computation of the extra wages for each of the Saturday on which 8 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 9 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters they might have worked while their colleagues in the offices of the Municipal Committee have enjoyed the benefit of rest on Saturday. The Supreme Court had directed those workmen to move an application under Section 33C(2) for computation of the entitlement of their extra wages for Saturdays which they might have worked while their colleagues in the office of the Municipal Corporation had enjoyed benefit of Saturdays off, provided the 52 Saturdays in a given calendar year were enjoyed by the employees of the State Government.
After the judgment in Sirhind case was pronounced a spate of petitions were filed in this Court by the other employees who were performing field duties on posts such as Mali, Fitter, Pump Operator, Beldar, Sewerman, Safai Sewak, Fireman etc, who were even not party before the Supreme Court for claiming similar relief of extra wages for working 6 days in a week. These writ petitions were disposed of by this Court with the following observations:
"The State Government is expected to obey and follow the law laid down by the highest Court of the land and grant benefits to its employees, who were similarly situated in accordance with law. It will not be appropriate for the government to compel its employees to seek redressal of their grievances through process of the court. In this regard, detailed directions were issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satbir Singh & another Vs. The State of Haryana and others, Civil Writ Petition No. 4382 of 2002 decided on 21.3.2002. We do hope that the government would at its own at least now and upon consideration of the cases of the petitioners pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as expeditiously as possible.
In any case, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as their right to receive monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest court of the land. If the petitioners have
9 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 10 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters performed their duties on Saturdays and Sundays then in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, their claim can hardly be refuted. In other words, it appears to us that right of the petitioners stands settled and it is only consequential benefits in terms of money that are being denied by the respondents to the petitioners. Appropriate remedy in terms of the above judgment is under the Industrial Disputes Act, but we do hope that respondents would not compel the petitioners to take recourse to such procedural law.
This petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations."
The order passed by this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of filing a number of SLPs which were decided on 14.02.2008 disposing of SLP converted to Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003 and connected matters with the following observations:-
"In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that is not necessary for us to interfere with the impugned judgment at this stage. We may notice that in Civil Appeal No. 5873 of 2006 disposed of on 15.12.2006, this Court observed as under:-
"An application under Section 33C(2) would be maintainable if the workman has a legal right in relation to his claim. They will have to establish the same. In such a proceeding, undisputedly the applicants shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the Industrial Court. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed".
For the reasons stated hereinbefore, these appeals are disposed of."
It is the further contention of Mr. Soni that in the order dated 14.02.2008 passed by the Supreme Court in Sirhind case it has specifically been held that the application under Section 33C(2) would be maintainable if 10 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 11 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters the workmen has a legal right in relation to his claim. They will have to establish the same in court.
Mr. Soni cites Single Bench of this Court (P.B.Bajanthri,J.) in CWP No.8344 of 2015 titled as "Nagar Council Mandi Gobindgarh Vs/ Presiding Officer, Labour Court, & others, 2016 (4) SCT 544 in which it has been held in the same context as in the present batch that the respondent workmen have taken recourse to Section 33C(2) of the Act having regard to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, as well as the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003. On reading the decisions in CWP No. 11811 of 2002 with Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003, there is no declaration in law that the respondents are entitled to extra wages for having discharged their duties on Saturdays. Therefore, application under Section 33C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court was not maintainable. The Labour Court had fallen in error in entertaining the application and passing orders in favour of the respondents. The question of invoking Section 33C(2) of the Act would arise as and when right of an employee created for entitlement to extra wages for working on Saturdays and general holidays is conferred by law or legal instrument having the force of law. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
It is urged that in the present case neither the Municipal Corporation nor the Court have determined the right of the respondents that they are entitled to extra wages for working on Saturdays. Consequently, the impugned award is liable to be set aside as PO/LC has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him. The workers have no demonstrable existing right to wages/salary for working on Saturdays in performance of duties in the Field.
11 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 12 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters It is further canvassed by the learned counsel for the municipality that this Court in Nagar Council Mandi Gobindgarh (supra) has further held that the judgment in Sirhind case is in personam, that is, applicable to a class of employees viz., clerical staff and peons. He quotes a passage from the judgment of learned single bench which reads:
"Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court is in personam. A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large, as contrasted from a right in personam which is an interested protected solely against specific individuals. Actions in personam refer to actions determining the rights and interests of the parties themselves in the subject matter of the case, whereas action in rem refer to actions determining the title to property and the rights of the parties and not merely among themselves but also against all persons at any time claiming an interest in that property. Correspondingly, a judgment in personam refers to a judgment against a person as distinguished from judgment against a thing, a right or status and a judgment in rem refers to a judgment that determines the status or condition of property which operates directly on the property itself 17 of 18 (Vide Black's Law Dictionary).
(20) The judgment in Municipal Employees Union's case (Supra), it is evident that it is judgment in personam i.e. to a class of employees viz., clerical staff and peons. Therefore, no right has been conferred by this Court in favour of the respondents who are holders of the post of Tubewell Operator, Assistant Pump Driver, Beldar, Plumber, Fitter, Sewerman etc., in CWP No. 11811 of 2002 and in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997."
Therefore, no right has been conferred or declared by Court in favour of the respondents who are holders of the posts of Tubewell Operator, Assistant Pump Driver, Beldar, Plumber, Fitter, Sewerman etc. in some of the cases in which Mr. Soni appears.
12 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 13 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters On facts it is argued that the workman/ Respondent being an employee falling in the category of Field Staff has miserably failed to prove any document on the file vide which he has established his legal right with regard to his claim. On the other hand during his cross-examination, he has admitted that he works in the Field, the post is not transferable and besides he has not even raised a grievance with the Corporation regarding the claim in the application.
On notice, the Petitioner/ Municipal Committee filed its detailed written statement as well as copy of Circular Ex.M1 dated 03.11.1993 vide which the Government of Punjab have specifically clarified that the Saturday & Sunday holidays are only available to the employees who work in the offices and those who are field employees are only entitled for Sunday off. Therefore, the field staff cannot avail 'two days weekly off' as a matter of right. Despite the fact that this circular was placed on the file, the Ld. Presiding Officer though discussed the Circular while narrating the facts of the case in his order, has omitted to return a finding on the core issue and has proceeded to pass final orders without taking the document into consideration. Noticing evidence but ignoring it while recording reasons in support of the conclusion is not one and the same thing; for want of due application of mind, so essential for judicial review.
Learned PO/LC, it is contended, has not only wrongly relied upon the Circular of the Government dated 06.09.1979 in which it was declared that all the Saturdays as holidays in the Government offices throughout the State of Punjab till further orders would be holidays, but has misread it. Whereas the said Circular was replaced firstly by the previous Circular and then by the 13 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 14 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters existing Circular dated 03.11.1993 presently holding the field wherein it has been clarified that the field staff is not entitled for two days weekly off. There is no challenge to these circulars nor could be laid, or the plea entertained by the labour courts and tribunals in any of its jurisdictions.
The learned PO/LC has blindly placed reliance upon the judgment in Sirhind case wherein the Supreme Court was faced with discrimination when the admitted factual position that Class-III & Class-IV employees i.e. Peon and Clerks had common seniority list and belonged to the same cadre and their posts were transferable with the office staff, as and when they are posted in the Octroi department, then they have to work for 6 days a week while their colleagues come to enjoy the five day working week and as a result there is unfair discrimination among the same category and had thus held them entitled for the wages for working on Saturdays.
This Court in single bench while dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.20836 of 2014 titled "Harmesh Chand & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others" 2015 (2) SCT 157 held as under:-
"9. I do not think that the writ jurisdiction ought to be invoked in a case of this kind which authority is meant to come in aid of cases of hostile and invidious discrimination such as amongst those who were equally placed in the same nursery or string of nurseries governed by one department of the Government and are being treated unequally and unfairly, then court intervention is possible and must follow. The special type of work performed in farms, gardens and nurseries by themselves is the singular object and the intelligible differentia dividing the two groups of employees separating workers in nurseries from those who perform duties in Government offices. The Notification dated 07.04.1980 issued by the Government of Punjab does not address itself to the petitioners and therefore
14 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 15 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters their reliance on it is misplaced. It does not apply to employees working in farms, gardens and nurseries insofar as working hours are concerned, for them to claim parity with Government offices where people work from 9:00 AM to 5:00PM with half an hour break. The needs are disparate. The requirements are widely different. This is simply because the notification speaks of 'offices'. A farm or nursery is not an office stricto sensu where blue-collar staff is found working. Though a part of the farm or a nursery may have an adjunct office but the part would be severable from the main activity where the petitioners may be found occasionally but do not work."
This Court in a case bearing LPA No.1178 of 2015 titled as "Nagar Council, Samrala Vs. Ram Sanjeevan & others" 2016 (3) SCT 481 decided on 26.04.2016 held as follows:-
"It is, thus, evident that the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. We have failed to discover the so called discrimination, which is sought to be projected in the present case. The petitioners belong to the field staff and cannot seek parity with the office staff and, therefore, they cannot seek equal treatment with the unequal. Therefore, we do not find any legal justification to accept the claim made by the petitioners. For the reasons stated above this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
If the aforesaid principles of law are applied in the case of the respondent-workmen, the only conclusion which can be reached is that the they are not entitled to the relief prayed for, for the reason that none of the employees in the cadre of the respondent-workmen are working in the office enjoying Saturday as a holiday. As the respondent-workmen are not employees working in the office, rather they are working as Beldar, Fitter and Mali in the field, hence, the judgment in Municipal Employees Union (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The respondent workmen cannot equate themselves with the staff working in the office. They
15 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 16 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters belong to the field staff, hence, the plea of discrimination is totally misconceived.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside."
In CWP No.2060 of 2003 titled 'Nathu Ram & 66 others Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board' [decided on 24.02.2003], S.S.Nijjar, J.
speaking for the Division Bench while seized of the same controversy and similar prayer, as the employees in these cases, observed that although the petitioners before it rendered duties for six working days in every week, but there is no parity in controversy where the petitioners in whose case the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in Sirhind case. The Bench found that the petitioners therein are attached in the Field Officers in the Field Offices, worked for six days in a week and were allowed field holidays as sanctioned on year to year basis. The claim for extra wages for Saturdays was turned down.
The Division Bench of this Court in Om Parkash Aerry & others Vs. Union of India & others, 2004 (4) SCT 55. dealt with the issue of extra wages for working on Saturdays noticed on facts while declining the writ that In this scenario, the Sirhind case was distinguished.
This case arose out of 33C(2) proceedings involving the BBMB.
The petitioners were aggrieved by a notification dated May 27, 1983 in which it was decided that all employees whether regular or work-charge working in the field offices would work for six days in a week. A claim for extra work done after office hours and on holidays was also made. Admittedly, employees in Field Establishments received compensation by way of either additional casual leaves besides normal casual leaves and field holidays. They were even 16 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 17 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters granted fixed travelling allowances for 12 full daily allowances in a month.
The Bench considered the Sirhind case and distinguished it and dismissed the petition.
Furthermore, in RA No.174 of 2003 in CWP No.13487 of 2002 titled 'Balwant Rai & others Vs. State of Punjab & others' decided on 10.05.2013, the Division Bench while noticing the Sirhind case again stressed that the claim would be justified in case where Rules & Regulations have been framed requiring a workmen to work on Saturdays and Sundays, they would not be entitled for monetary benefits by granting extra wages for the said two days.
In Sat Pal Puri Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & others, (2008) 4 SCC 216, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held on the moot issue as follows after noticing the Sirhind case:
"9. We must however notice that the Punjab State Electricity Board had issued a circular letter dated 27-10-1986 which is in the following terms:
"In compliance with the instructions issued vide this Office Order No. 432/PSEB dated 24-5-1982, it is informed that all the officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board shall function from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. from Monday to Friday with lunch break from 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. i.e. the same office timings of the Government of Punjab. The offices of the Electricity Board shall remain closed on all the Saturdays and Sundays.
2. The same holidays shall be observed in the offices of the Punjab State Electricity Board as are being observed in the offices of the Punjab Government."
10. A bare perusal of the said Circular dated 27-10-1986 would clearly show that the same would be applicable only in 17 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 18 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters respect of the officers and employees working in the office of the Electricity Board and not the field staff. The circular letter dated 5-4-1972 has not been repealed by circular letter dated 27- 10-1986.
11. 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 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12. We have noticed hereinabove that even in Municipal Employees Union case this Court opined that the octroi staff could be entitled to the said benefit of non-working Saturdays and when required to work on such Saturdays, were entitled to extra wages in lieu thereof, if they are not governed by any of the rules. In the case the appellants being governed by statutory rules, they would not be entitled to file applications under Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act."
Fire Brigade Services The services under the Fire Brigade Wing are of an essential character and employment is governed by specific Rules, namely, the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977 and General Orders issued under it with reference to Rule 3(a) of the Rules. Thereby, Municipalities are enjoined to frame Standing Orders to regulate the formation and working of such brigades in different Districts of the State to maintain fire services efficiently. Of matters regulating formation and working of the Fire Brigade, there is a provision for every Committee to inter alia provide for issuing Standing Orders on the "nature of duty" enumerated in Rule 3(a) relevant to Sections 93 and 240 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. In view of this, the Government of Punjab has from time to time passed Standing Orders for its Committees. Since these matters are covered from the period 1990 onwards, therefore, the two 18 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 19 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters standing orders, which were in operation in the relevant years, are relevant to notice:
"Sub: Standing Orders framed for the formation and Working of Fire Brigades in the State as required under Rule 3(a) of the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977. In continuation of this office Memo No.FO-DLF-
80/38460-478 dated 16.10.1980 on the subject noted above.
2. A copy of the revised standing orders as required under rule 3(a) of the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977 is enclosed for adoption by the Municipal Corporation / Municipal Committees to facilitate the working of the Fire Brigade being maintained by your Corporations / Municipal Committees.
3. The requirement of the standing orders may please be complied with strictly."
The Standing Orders/General Orders framed under the 1977 Rules contained a specific clause in respect of leaves, which reads as under:
"21. All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to 20 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/ Second Saturday, which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty. The special casual, leave shall be added to individuals casual leave account and the officer in charge shall see that not more than 10% of the staff is allowed leave at any time." (...emphasis supplied) The relevant extract of subsequent Notification/ Revised Standing Order dated 09.07.2004 issued under the 1977 Rules, which provides more beneficially to the Fire Brigade Staff in matters of leave and which reads as follows:
19 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 20 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters "Sub: Standing orders framed for the formation and working of Fire Brigades in the State as required under Rule 3(a) of the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977.
*** Reference in supersession of this office Memo No.FO- DLG-88/24496-24522 dated 15.06.1988 on the subject noted above.
2. A copy of the revised standing orders is enclosed herewith for adoption by the Municipal Corporations / Municipal Councils to facilitate the working of the Fire Brigades being maintained by you.
3. The Standing Orders may be complied with strictly."
The Standing Revised Orders enclosed with the aforesaid notification specifically contains Clause 20, which reads as under:
"20. All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees in lieu of the gazetted holidays, which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty. One day weekly off allowed to all fire brigade employees in rotation wise or as per the officer in charge of the fire station. The special casual leave shall be added to individual's casual account and the officer in charge shall see that, not more than 10 % of the staff is allowed to leave at any time." (...emphasis supplied) There appears to be sufficient compensation for work done on Saturdays, which equitably balances the interest of the employees commensurate with their duties in the Fire Brigade services and, therefore, the cases of employees of the Fire Brigade stand on an altogether different footing.
They have no right to claim extra wages for work performed on Saturdays in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act since the right is not codified and pre-existing. None can be created form the first time in 20 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 21 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters execution proceedings that originate from the provisions in Section 33C(2) of the Act. This jurisdiction is not creative of rights but only in the nature of implementation of existing rights denied by employer and claimed by aggrieved workman. The scope of proceedings in Section 33C(2) of the Act are indicated in celebrated exposition of the law in P.S.Rajagopalan case (supra).
The principle underlying claims for extra pay for working during weekends is generally a matter of agreement between the employer and the employee. The present batch of cases does not cover private enterprise governed by contract. We deal here with Municipal and Government employees governed by Rules, Regulations, Instructions, Bye-laws & Standing/ General Orders framed by the State Government/Committee/Corporations from time to time. I fail to see any scope in substantiating claims for extra wages for Saturdays could be made out before the Labour Court in execution proceedings and accordingly the orders passed in favour of the employees allowing the claim for extra wages have to be set aside.
PUNJAB MANDI BOARD CASES The services of the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board are governed by the Punjab Mandi Board, Class III & Class IV Rules, which provide that on the issue regarding which there is no provision in the Board's Rules, the service rules and instructions issued by the Punjab Government from time to time shall govern their services. The Board follows the procedure in Punjab Public Works Department in its various wings. Moreover, the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class IV) Service Rules, 1988 provide in Rule 12 matters relating to 'leave, pay and other matters etc.' And prescribe in 21 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 22 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters sub Rule (1) that in respect of pay leave and other matters not expressly provided for in these rules the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time.
Cases involving Class IV and other employees in Punjab Mandi Board are akin to staff working in the Public Health Department, Punjab as T-
Mates, Helpers, Pump Operators, Plumbers, Sewer-man, Sweepers, Fitters and Coolies are required to serve round the clock to maintain public services. The nature of their duties demands a six days' working week. Some of the categories involved in CWP No.20564 of 2016 and other connected cases are stated to be in receipt of additional benefits like free residence, free water supply and power. Most of the employees engaged in the hands on jobs also get summer and winter uniform with maintenance allowances. No such benefits are available or admissible to the employees exclusively deputed to office work. Other categories like Survey Khalasi, Electricians, Supervisors, Chowkidars and Junior Engineers work on both sides i.e. Public Health, Civil and Electrical side. Junior Engineers enjoy Supervisory Powers under aforementioned categories and are not covered within the definition of 'workman' because it is they who mark attendance of all the employees and deal with leave applications etc. The claim of the workmen in this set of cases before the Labour Court was based on two limbs i.e. (i) Circular dated 07.04.1980 by which the State Government had notified five days' week for office staff, which has already been interpreted by Court as restricted to office staff alone and not field staff, as their duties and responsibilities of work are wholly different; (ii) the 22 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 23 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters other basis for filing applications claiming extra wages was the case in Sirhind.
However, in Sirhind case, the Supreme Court held that an application under Section 33C(2) would be maintainable if the aggrieved employee has a legal right in relation to his claim, which was required to be established by them. It has been asserted in defence that none of the posts above mentioned are inter-
changeable with office staff. The names of the two set of employees fall in different cadres for which different seniority lists are maintained in field and in the office. They have no common seniority. The Board relies on Rule 3.10 of Vol. I, Part-I of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which prescribe that every employee is whole time employee of the Government. Rule 3.10 is reproduced below:
"3.10 Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government employee is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim or additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from Union or State revenue, or from the revenues of local fund."
Learned counsel for the Board submits that in so far as employees working on the civil and electrical side are concerned regarding work such as laying / re-carpeting of roads, the activity comes to a stand still for a period of almost six months in one year i.e. during rainy, as well as winter season.
Similarly, construction activity is also not carried out during rainy season and during this period, the aforesaid category of workmen continue to enjoy full wages, while employees in the office staff have to work round the year.
Sirhind case is both in rem and personam with respect to Octroi staff but is in rem qua employees working on Octroi posts but is in personam 23 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 24 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters respecting other categories of employees who may or may not be covered by bye-laws which lay down a six day working schedule. The other cases will have to be considered on their own facts and Sirhind case will have no automatic application. Wherever there is absence of bye-laws governing the service then the rule in Sirhind case applies provided there is inter-mingling of staff by the discretion exercised in the matter of postings and transfers from field to office and from office to field on corresponding posts, if there is such dedication. I think the real difference lies in the manual and supervisory nature of work entrusted to employees in the field which office staff cannot perform by virtue of the different set of skills required in office work of policy implementation, recording notes in a bureaucratic hierarchy and in public dealing.
Prior to April 07, 1980 all Punjab Government employees had a six day week. Post Notification dated April 07, 1980, the position changed and the five days' week regime was introduced restricted to employees in "offices"
in the departments of Government of Punjab. Notification dated April 07, 1980 was adopted by the Punjab Mandi Board and therefore, the previous position continued subsisting for employees other than in offices. Therefore, field staff was separated from office staff to serve a six day week because no change was brought about in their weekly work schedule by orders in writing. Before the Labour Court, the stand of the respondent - Board through their official witness, namely, RW-1 Ashok Chadha, SDO deposing in cross-examination -
"It is correct that prior to notification dated April 07, 1980 employees of all departments of Government of Punjab were working for six days in a week and one day rest". The said witness had further admitted in cross-examination that there is no specific rule directing the applicant to work for six days in a week
24 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 25 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters and take only one day rest. On this, I have only to say that an official witness cannot go beyond the office record nor can add or subtract from it. He cannot depose on law on his own and any such statement will not be binding on the department or municipality. He had obviously not come prepared for cross examination on the notifications from 1980 onwards or what they legally meant or implied. This part of duty belongs to Court to interpret the law, instructions, notifications, bye-laws etc. Even if there was no specific rule directing employee to work for six days in a week, even then a five day week cannot be claimed as a matter of right since a government servant is employed for 24 hours, 12 months till retirement. The onus was on the claimant to prove his case and demonstrate his right to extra wages for the work performed on Saturdays as a pre-existing right based on an order of the employer.
The argument of the Board that the Notification dated April 07, 1980 did not apply to field staff is correct interpretation of law. If no bye-laws were enacted by the Punjab Mandi Board after April 07, 1980 then it does not mean that field staff would have a pre-existing right to wages for Saturdays worked or weekly day off. This is the fallacy in the impugned order dated January 12, 2016 created by the misreading of notification dated April 07, 1980 even after recording on first page of the order when observing in para.12 that notification applies to employees working in offices. This is an incorrect view as plain common sense dictates that there is a mark distinction between those working in government offices and those working in the field of the respective departments, which require dedicated field staff for smooth functioning of public services.
25 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 26 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters Reasoning is incorrect that Board did not promulgate during the relevant period any bye-laws applicable uniformly to all the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board to work for six days in a week. The Labour Court noticed the argument on behalf of the workmen in para.12 as follows:
"...Punjab Mandi Board has not promulgated during the period in question any bye-laws uniformally making it applicable to all the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board to work for 6 days in a week. Thus, in the absence of any specific rules / bye-laws, the workmen in present case cannot be denied the benefit of five days week as given to other employees posted in the office of the respondents."
And answered in paragraph 18 as follows:
"It is also admitted that after issuance of notification dated 07.04.1980, no bye-laws were enacted, vide which, applicant were required to work for six days in a week...Hence keeping in view the facts and circumstances, applicant is entitled to claim wages for working on Saturday for the period of 3 years prior to the date of institution of Civil Writ Petition No.16541 of 2003 as prayed for till he worked on the said post as per record subject to Departmental calculation. Accordingly, findings of these issues are decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."
The Punjab Mandi Board is under no legal obligation to promulgate bye-laws. By adoption of Punjab Government notification dated April 07, 1980 they had extended that benefit of five days week only to its staff working in offices alone to the exclusion of field staff. The meaning of the notification was plain from a full circle it was taking away a slice for office staff to reduce their working week to five days by leaving intact the previous position. Therefore, it was not legally necessary for the Board to issue bye-
26 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 27 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters laws, clarification or modification of the Punjab Government's circular which they were bound to obey and implement. The Labour Court has misread the 1980 notification and imputed what does not exist on the face of the notification, which is clear and unambiguous that it was meant only for office staff and not the field staff. The two being distinct classification of employees serving different purposes of the State. This is a mathematical device of subtracting or taking out one day from a six day week and confining two day off weekly benefit to the employees working in offices. The notification was not superseded with respect to the field staff and they remained in duty bound to serve for six days in a week. The subtracted part made two separate categories of employees and they became unequals by classification with the promulgation of the moot notification and which departure was not inconsistent with the object sought to be achieved to maintain public utility and essential services in the respective districts of the State of Punjab. Therefore, it appears to me the position obtaining prior to April 07, 1980 as far as field staff is concerned continued to be six days a week and the position will rule the roost even today. The two groups are not homogeneous and, therefore, a case of discrimination does not arise. The work performed by the two type of employees is not equal in any manner as far as their duties and responsibilities are concerned.
The grave error committed by the Labour Court in allowing the claim was lack of due attention paid to the use of the word 'offices' in the notification/s. This is apparent from the reading of the order when the Labour Court records in para.18 that the notification dated 07.04.1980 declared "five working days in a week for its employees". The word 'employees' in the impugned order of the Labour Court changes the complete complexion of the 27 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 28 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters notification issued by the Punjab Government by broad basing it to cover all employees and re-writing the notification, which it had no authority to do, when the expressed intention of the Government was to give the benefit restricted only to employees working in its "offices".
This was not the peculiar situation confronting the Supreme Court in Sirhind case created by collection of revenue by establishing Octroi posts without a separate cadre in the State Government to man them. The attention of the Supreme Court in Sirhind case was invited to notification dated December 11, 1986 issued by Punjab Government Department in Para.9 of Sirhind case.
The relevant paragraphs i.e. 9 to 12 read as under:
"9. So far as this grievance is concerned we may mention that our attention was invited to a government notification dated 11-12-1986 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Establishment Branch) which stated that the holidays enumerated in the schedule below (as mentioned in the notification) shall be observed as public holidays in public office under the Punjab Government during the calendar year 1987. This schedule shows that 52 Saturdays, amongst others, were to be observed as holidays. We are told that similar government notifications were issued from time to time in different calendar years. Result was that the Punjab government servants working in public offices under the State enjoyed 52 Sundays and 52 Saturdays as mentioned in the aforesaid notification, which was filed as a specimen. Placing reliance on this notification and other identical notifications as were issued from time to time by the State authorities, according to the appellants, all the State government servants enjoyed the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays, meaning thereby, they had to work only for five days in a week. If that was so, this benefit would automatically accrue to the municipal employees working in the Municipal Committees. In support of this contention our attention was invited to Rule 3 of
28 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 29 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters the Punjab Municipal General Rules, 1979 (for short "the 1979 Rules") which reads as under:
"3. General Principles [Sections 236 and 240(1)]. - Every committee shall observe such general principles of administration as are followed in the departments of the State Government.
10. A mere look at the said Rule shows that it was promulgated by the State Government in exercise of powers under Sections 236 and 240(1) of the Act. When we turn to these two provisions of the parent Act we find that Section 236 deals with power of the State Government and its officers over committees. Sub-section (1) thereof lays down that the State Government and Deputy Commissioners, acting under the orders of the State Government, shall be bound to require that the proceedings of the committees shall be in conformity with law and with the rules in force under any enactment for the time being, applicable to Punjab generally or the area over which the committees have authority.
11. It is obvious that this general provision, dealing with the proceedings of the committees, may strictly have no connection with the regulation of the duty hours or the holidays to be observed by the staff members. But so far as Section 240(1) of the Act, which deals with power of the State Government to frame forms and make rules is concerned, sub-section (1) thereof lays down that the State Government may frame forms for any proceeding of a committee and may make any rules consistent with this Act to carry out the purposes thereof and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power may make rules as laid down by clauses (a) to (zzz) of sub-section (1) of Section 240 of the Act. One of the topics of the rule-making power listed therein is found in clause (nn) of sub-section (1) of Section 240 which reads as under:
"240. (1)(nn) the manner of constitution of municipal services, the classification, method of recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services;"
29 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 30 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters
12. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that Rule 3 of the 1979 Rules would squarely cover the topic of regulation of general principles of administration of the Municipal Committees and consequently, the general principles regarding regulation of working days to be observed by the administration could be promulgated by the State authorities even by executive orders like the aforesaid government circular notification. And such orders would automatically apply to the Municipal Committees and its staff, meaning thereby, the staff members of the Municipal Committees also will be entitled to enjoy 52 Saturdays in a year as holidays and no further adaptation of the government circulars/notifications in the years concerned is required to be resorted to by the committees to enable its staff members to enjoy these benefits."
In para.10 of Sirhind case the Supreme Court held that Ss.236 and 240 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 may strictly have no connection with the duty hours or the holidays to be observed by the staff members and in view of proposed order considered, observed, it is strictly not necessary to examine this question finally. Rule 3 of General rules may not cover this question. The moot questions required to be examined was whether employees belonging to Class-III or Class-IV service of Municipal Committee who have: (i) Common employer (ii) Common seniority list (iii) Common pay scales (iv) Required to work either in Octroi check post or in the offices of MCs (v) Depending on exigencies of service (vi) Can have equal right to enjoy Saturdays as holidays
vii) whether the right available to entire cadre as such to enjoy weekly holidays
(viii) the right denied only to a limited category of Octroi staff due to postings and transfers, exigencies of service which deny right to a limited category of Octroi staff who had at a given point of time required to work only in offices but by rotation in Octroi check post or barriers (ix) these issues were narrowed and pegged down to whether there is any express provision in the Municipal 30 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 31 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters bye-laws requiring all the staff members to have six day working per week (x) only if this position obtained at ground level then it would not be fair to treat a cohesive transferable staff and to exclude the staff posted at Octroi check post or barriers not to be paid wages for Saturday because they form a single homogenous staff. (xi) It follows that where cadres are separate, seniority lists are separate, pay scales are different, nature of duties and responsibilities are different, job content is different, requirements in public utilities are different then it would not follow in due course that Sirhind case will be applicable. If the characteristics are missing of which the ratio in Sirhind case depended then the claim would no longer be pre-existing right and would be rendered incapable of determination in proceedings under Section 33C(2). The Sirhind case has been the stock-in-trade of all these large batch of cases.
The ruling in Sirhind was considered by the Supreme Court by a short order in Nagar Council, Kapurthala Vs. Davinder Kumar and others, (2012) 10 SCC 280, involving the same issue of a claim of entitlement to wages for working on Saturdays and Sundays in proceedings under 33C(2).
The Supreme Court emphasized that in such a claim workman must establish legal right in S.33 C(2) as observed in Sirhind case. However, the order proceeded on a concession when the liability was not disputed by Municipal Council, Kapurthala either in its written statement or before the High Court or at the oral hearing, the Supreme Court did not consider it a fit case to interfere in discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the appeals relegating parties for an adjudication before the Labour Court.
Then again in Sat Pal Puri v. PSEB and others, (2008) 4 SCC 216 the Supreme Court considered a case involving a claim based on parity in the 31 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 32 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters matter of remuneration for working on Saturdays and Sundays. The technical staff of the Board filed applications under Section 33C(2) claiming wages for Saturdays. The technical staff was governed by regulations framed under Section 79 (C) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The High Court upheld the order of the labour Court allowing the applications. The Supreme Court did not agree and in paragraph 11 of the report the case in Sirhind was noticed but was held inapplicable in the presence of statutory rules governing service. Their holidays were regulated by rules belonging to Technical Category Service Grade-III requiring them to perform field duties. Supply of electricity is a public utility service of the Board was designed to run 24x7 and 365 days including in the leap year. The Board, therefore, is required to have technical staff round-the-clock at their disposal to maintain supply of electricity to the consumers. The circular dated October 27, 1986 issued by the Board was noticed which made a distinction between office staff and field staff and it was only the offices of the Electricity Board that would remain closed on all Saturdays and Sundays on parity with offices of the Punjab Government. This circular was applicable only in respect of officers and employees working in the offices of the Electricity Board and not the field staff. The field staff continued to be governed by circular letter dated April 05, 1972 and from a perusal whereof it appeared that technical field staff would be entitled to holidays in the calendar year as stipulated therein, namely, (i) Saturdays on alternate months - not exceeding five and (ii) half the number of Gazetted Holidays notified by the Board for the other staff. The Supreme Court found that the circular letter dated April 05, 1972 has not been repealed by circular letter dated October 27, 1986 and, therefore, the technical staff did not have an existing legal right to enable them to file an application and maintain it under 32 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 33 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters Section 33C(2). The High Court's decision in review application filed by the Board was maintained. The review was allowed when the judgment in Sirhind was found not applicable to the case. As a result, the order passed in review application was maintained and the Special Leave Petition filed by Puri was dismissed.
The entire matter can be looked into from another angle while dealing with rules of service, that is, upon following the opinion delivered by Hon'ble M.H.Beg, CJI in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 holding that in cases where employees are governed by service rules to that extent claims under the Act stand excluded.
His Lordship in paragraphs 18 & 19, while broadly agreeing with the opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer on the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, tellingly observed:-
"18. ...What is meant by the use of the term "sovereign", in relation to the activities of the State, in more accurately brought out by using the term "governmental" functions although there are difficulties here also in as much as the Government has entered largely now fields of industry. Therefore, only those services which are governed by separate rules and constitutional provisions, such as Articles 310 and 311 should, strictly speaking, be excluded from the sphere of industry by necessary implications.
19. I am impressed by the argument that certain public utility services which are carried out by governmental agencies or corporations are treated by the Act itself as within the sphere of industry. If express rules under other enactments govern the relationship between the State as an employer and his servants as employees, it may be contended, on the strength of such provisions, that a particular set of employees are outside the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act for that reason. The special
33 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 34 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters excludes the applicability of the general. We cannot forget that we have to determine the meaning of the term 'industry' in the context of and for the purposes of matters provided for in the Industrial Disputes Act only."
THE CASE OF THE STATE OF PUNJAB These cases largely involve employees working as Beldars, Work Mistri, Road Inspectors, Work Munshies etc. in the PWD(B&R) Department etc. State has asserted that these categories of employees have Field duty for the upkeep of roads and maintenance of buildings under the jurisdiction of the Department. Their salaries and pay scales have been fixed by the Government. They worked from Monday to Saturday. The seniorities and postings are separate from office staff such as Peons, Clerks, Assistants, Stenographers etc. The field staff cannot be transferred or posted in the office, nor is the office staff deployed in the field. The nature of duties is different. The State has not brought to the notice of this Court any precedent other than once noticed above and dealt with. The only important point made by the State in its set of cases is that there is no inter-changeability between field staff and office staff.
The case propounded by Mr. R.K.Arora, learned counsel appearing for the workers in CWP Nos.24176 of 2013; 24168 of 2013;
17714 of 2013; 4697 of 2014; 12674 of 2014; 17735 of 2013; 25193 of 2013 & 24167 of 2013 which requires separate treatment because in addition to Sirhind case etc. it is based also on his reliance on the Division Bench judgment rendered in Nirbhai Singh Vs. Punjab Mandi Board, 2005 (6) SLR 286 [decided on 19.07.2005] claiming the relief for the work performed on Saturdays in the PWD (B&R) Department. The 34 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 35 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters said writ petition dealt with the Punjab Mandi Board and not the State of Punjab. At first glance, the judgment does appear to assist him, but on due reflection and research it is found that in the special leave petition carried by the Punjab Mandi Board to the Supreme Court, there was initially a stay on the operation of the judgment vide order dated 03.03.2006 while granting leave and condoning the delay in presenting the petition, the case was ordered to be tagged with C.A.No.1476 of 2003. The tagged-together bunch of cases was finally decided in Davinder Kumar case (supra). No final opinion was expressed by the Supreme Court on the point and the case was remitted for determination to the respective Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals. Therefore, the case does not come to the rescue of the workers he represents and similarly placed employees in this bunch of cases. In any case, the Division Bench in Nirbhai Singh's case was not apprised of the notifications issued by the State of Punjab from time to time dealing with the subject matter and which are noticed above. The decision cannot be treated as binding precedent especially in view of subsequent case law distinguishing Sirhind case, which itself was rendered in a freak situation demanded by the exigencies of administration, when Octroi posts were established in the State of Punjab without creating a separate cadre.
In Mr. Arora's cases, the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar by its order dated 06.09.2016 rendered in a bunch of 66 connected applications filed under Section 33 C (2) of the Act in lead Application No.15 of 2014 titled 'Anil Luthra Vs. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar' has dismissed the applications claiming benefit of Saturdays filed by employees of the Fire Brigade Department of the Municipality working 35 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 36 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters as SFOs, DOs, FMs, LFMs & Drivers. The Tribunal has correctly applied the law in Nagar Council, Samrala vs. Ram Sanjeevan and others, 2016 (3) SCT 481 and dismissed the applications. The Tribunal has aptly referred to paragraph 20 of the Standing Orders, which provide that all members of the Fire Brigade staff shall be entitled for 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees in lieu of gazetted holidays. Moreover, Fire Brigade employees are allowed one day weekly off rotation-wise which is great relief from the work regimen. The Tribunal has noticed and dealt with the notification dated 07.04.1980 and declined the relief to the claimants based on the declaration law in case Ram Sanjeevan case. I have no reason to differ with the impugned order viewed from all the possible angles.
This Court in CWP No.5220 of 2003 in an unreported Division Bench judgment rendered in 'Soma Ram & 35 others Vs. State of Punjab & others' on 22.09.2003 presided over by J.S.Khehar, J., when His Lordship was a Judge of this Court, in an identical issue arising out of Sub Division, PWD B&R, Batala with Field Workers, namely, Motor Makes, Supervisors, Boatman, Carpenter, Chowkidar, Beldar, Mate etc. claiming additional wages for working on Saturdays, dismissed the claim of the field workers distinguishing the case in Sirhind as not applicable to employees posted in the field, where they are required to discharge duties even on Saturdays. The distinguishing feature applied by the Division Bench was that the posts which the petitioners held are available only in the field. There was no corresponding post in any of the offices of the PWD B&R. It was also not shown that any person 36 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 37 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters belonging to their cadre was discharging duties for a period of five working days per week in the offices, hence, there was no discrimination. It could not be said that there is arbitrary determination of wages payable to the persons belonging to the same cadre. It was not the grievance of the petitioners in Soma Ram's case that a person similarly situated as they petitioners working for lesser number of days is drawing the same emoluments as the petitioners. The Division Bench found no parity in the controversy raised with that before the Surpeme Court in Sirhind. This ruling was applied by the Labour Court -cum-
Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur in applications claiming similar relief under Section 33C2 of the Act presented by 146 field employees in PWD B&R Department at Patiala, Amritsar and Pathankot to dismiss the identical claims.
The few cases in this bunch involving past claims of the field workers based on Sirhind case would not detain me since interchangeability from field to office or vice versa within the same seniority list was not even pleaded from what I see on reading the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala in Application No.432/2008 decided on 31.03.2004 against which the Municipal Corporation, Patiala is in writ bearing CWP No.4560 of 2015 that Krishan Chand - applicant was the Flying Squad Beldar/Mali on fixed wages, but not on an Octroi post. There was no post of Mali in the Octroi post meant for collecting revenue. Malies are in receipt of extra benefits i.e. washing allowance, uniform allowance etc., which are not available to office staff. Krishan Chand had availed leaves sometimes for a month or two from the Corporation and still he was not satisfied with the wages and clamoured 37 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 38 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters for more for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.05.2008, but still the Presiding Officer has granted him wages for Saturdays restricted to three years prior to filing of the application i.e. from 10.07.2005 to 09.07.2008 to be paid within two months failing which the amount would earn interest at the rate of 6% p.a. till realization vide order dated 31.03.2014.
He does not even appear to have equity in his favour. The order is not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, in the present cases, there is conflict of opinion among the Labour Courts and Tribunals that is how the aggrieved workers and the aggrieved State of Punjab/ Municipal Committees/ Municipal Corporations are before this Court as either petitioners or respondents challenging or defending the impugned orders.
There is an unholy tendency in our country to first secure public employment by all means and then clamour for rights and cry discrimination, conveniently forgetting the duties they owe to their employers and the nation. And this is what these cases are actually all about which is lack of spirit of self-sacrifice. I would have liked to have probed as to how all the workmen in these cases had landed their jobs in the first place before they were heard on merits. That would be a rather uncomfortable question to ask from many of them, if not all. The picture I'd imagine would have been terribly dreary. The workers imagine that rights are free and duties dear.
As a result of the above discussion, I hold in précis as under:
38 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 39 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters
(i) It is declared that the Field Staff have no existing right to claim wages for work done on Saturdays as they work in a six day per week schedule as per law with the advantage of additional casual leave and other benefits etc. not available to the Office Staff, which compensate them adequately and beneficially and it is held that they have no claim as against the Office Staff to either work for 5 days a week or claim wages for Saturdays as overtime or extra work done because the nature and duties of work are totally different as between the two categories of employees when their services are not interchangeable. It is also held that there is no commonality in the work profile of Office Staff and Field Staff in the State of Punjab. They are reasonably classified with the objects sought to be achieved by the moot notifications in the exigencies of administration and the precepts of good governance linked with what is desirable to keep citizens happy with their daily lives.
(ii) In the present scheme of things and in the facts and circumstances of these cases, Article 14 of the Constitution has no place and is not violated when the Field Staff and Office Staff bear their separate birthmarks of service and belong to different cadres and separate seniorities, which cannot be interchanged by transfers and postings much like a two way street bound by rules or bye-laws governing the services in the cases under consideration. There is no inter-service discrimination practiced of an unfair kind even though the administrative department in Government or local body and its controlling authority may be common to both when the cadres and seniority lists are admittedly maintained separately with separate channels of promotion 39 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 40 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters between the two types of employees, one with tools in hand, the other paper; and,
(iii) The judgment in Sirhind case does not apply to the cases of the present workers in this batch of cases, as the decision is distinguishable on facts when it took care of an extraordinary situation arising out of the State establishing Octroi posts in Punjab to fill its till for public works without separately dividing manpower exclusive to the collection of revenue and hermitically sealed, one from the other of the two types of employees.
(iv) the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab, Municipalities, Boards etc. succeed and the impugned orders of the Labour Court(s)/ Tribunal(s) are set aside in cases which have gone in favour of the "workmen" employed in Field Staff;
(v) the writ petitions filed by the workers against the orders passed by the Labour Court(s)/Industrial Tribunal(s) are dismissed and the impugned orders maintained.
Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. The pending applications, if any, are closed, as no orders are required to be passed therein by virtue of common judgment in all 476 cases comprising the bunch. Parties will bear their own costs.
23.08.2017 [RAJIV NARAIN RAINA]
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Sr. No. CWP No. Title
1 CWP No.17819 of 2010 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer & ors.
2 CWP No.22328 of 2011 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Pritam Bhagat & ors.
40 of 55
::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 :::
41
CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 3 CWP No.15872 of 2012 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Diwan Chand & anr. 4 CWP No.21702 of 2012 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar & ors.
5 CWP No.25518 of 2012 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Muna Ram & anr. 6 CWP No.26183 of 2012 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sadhu Singh & anr. 7 CWP No.422 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Punu Ram & anr. 8 CWP No.428 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Kartar Singh & anr. 9 CWP No.4062 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
10 CWP No.4069 of 2013 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
11 CWP No.4075 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
12 CWP No.4076 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
13 CWP No.4086 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
14 CWP No.4087 of 2013 State of Punjab etc. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr. 15 CWP No.5581 of 2013 Director, State Transport Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
16 CWP No.5659 of 2013 Director, State Transport Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
17 CWP No.9011 of 2013 Municipal Committee, Jalalabad Vs. The Presiding Officer & ors.
18 CWP No.9719 of 2013 Sukhdev Raj & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors.
19 CWP No.11389 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer & ors. 20 CWP No.11418 of 2013 Director, State Transport, Punjab & anr. Vs. Gurdev Singh & ors.
21 CWP No.11428 of 2013 Director State Transport Punjab & ors. Vs. Sadhu Singh & ors.
22 CWP No.11460 of 2013 Director State Transport Punjab & ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh & ors.
23 CWP No.12605 of 2013 Sukhdev Singh & ors. Vs. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Amristar & ors.
24 CWP No.13170 of 2013 Director State Transport Punjab & ors. Vs. Balbir Singh & ors.
25 CWP No.13171 of 2013 Director State Transport Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh & ors.
26 CWP No.13172 of 2013 Director State Transport Punjab & ors. Vs. Balwant Singh & anr.
27 CWP No.13173 of 2013 Director State Transport Punjab & ors. Vs. Roop Lal & ors.
28 CWP No.13174 of 2013 Director State Transport Punjab & ors. Vs. Manjit Singh & ors.
29 CWP No.11603 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors.
30 CWP No.12561 of 2013 Gurpal Singh & ors. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar & ors.
31 CWP No.16015 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar & ors. 32 CWP No.16016 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Basant Singh & ors. 33 CWP No.16017 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Mehar Singh & ors. 34 CWP No.16019 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Mohan Singh & ors.
41 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 42 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 35 CWP No.16020 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Tikka Ram & ors. 36 CWP No.16031 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Balwinder Singh & ors. 37 CWP No.16033 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Darshan Singh & ors. 38 CWP No.16034 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Swaran Singh & ors. 39 CWP No.16944 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Harchet Singh & ors. 40 CWP No.16945 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Nirbhai Singh & ors. 41 CWP No.16946 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Harbans Singh & ors. 42 CWP No.17714 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Gurbachan Lal & ors. 43 CWP No.17715 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Veer Singh & ors. 44 CWP No.17718 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Prabh Dayal & ors. 45 CWP No.17730 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Harpal Singh & ors. 46 CWP No.17735 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Baldev Singh & ors. 47 CWP No.17751 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Dalip Singh & ors. 48 CWP No.17816 of 2013 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Sadhu Singh & ors. 49 CWP No.18083 of 2013 The Punjab Mandi Board & ors. Vs. Prem Singh & ors.
50 CWP No.22208 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jaspal Singh & anr. 51 CWP No.21510 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar & ors.
52 CWP No.21839 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ram Darshan & anr. 53 CWP No.24167 of 2013 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors.
54 CWP No.24168 of 2013 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors.
55 CWP No.24176 of 2013 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors.
56 CWP No.25129 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Hardev Singh & ors. 57 CWP No.25134 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Parminder Singh & ors. 58 CWP No.25135 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Uttam Singh & ors. 59 CWP No.25136 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Prem Sager & ors. 60 CWP No.25137 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Nempal Singh & ors. 61 CWP No.25138 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Balvir Singh & ors. 62 CWP No.25193 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana & ors.
63 CWP No.25548 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Harpreet Singh & ors. 64 CWP No.26968 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Harbans Lal & ors. 65 CWP No.26978 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Gursewak Singh & ors. 66 CWP No.26987 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Chiman Lal & ors. 67 CWP No.26993 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Balvir Singh & ors. 68 CWP No.26995 of 2013 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Harjit Singh & ors. 69 CWP No.1780 of 2014 The State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh & ors.
70 CWP No.1941 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Mukand Singh & ors. 71 CWP No.1955 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ravinder Singh & ors.
42 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 43 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 72 CWP No.1962 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Malkiat Singh & ors. 73 CWP No.1971 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Malkiat Singh & ors. 74 CWP No.1976 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jagtar Singh & ors. 75 CWP No.2883 of 2014 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Harbhajan Singh & anr. 76 CWP No.3363 of 2014 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Gurjant Singh & ors. 77 CWP No.4697 of 2014 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Roop Singh & ors. 78 CWP No.4960 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Gura Singh & anr. 79 CWP No.7939 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Gian Chand & anr. 80 CWP No.7946 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Harchan Singh & ors. 81 CWP No.8041 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Gurwinderjit Singh & ors.
82 CWP No.8043 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Bakhtawar Singh & ors. 83 CWP No.8044 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sukhdev Singh & ors. 84 CWP No.8045 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Kuldeep Singh & ors. 85 CWP No.8046 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sukhmander Singh & ors.
86 CWP No.8047 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Narinder Singh & ors. 87 CWP No.8048 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh & ors.
88 CWP No.8053 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jaswinder Singh & ors. 89 CWP No.8315 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Sarbat Singh & ors. 90 CWP No.8316 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Narinder Pal Singh & ors.
91 CWP No.8414 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Vijay Kumar & anr.
92 CWP No.8417 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Chaman Lal & anr.
93 CWP No.8419 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Ram Kishan & anr.
94 CWP No.8420 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Maya Devi & anr.
95 CWP No.8423 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Pappu Ram & anr.
96 CWP No.8424 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Om Parkash & anr.
97 CWP No.8478 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Gurbax Lal & anr.
98 CWP No.8882 of 2014 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Vs. Ram Avtar & anr.
99 CWP No.9306 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jagsir Singh & ors. 100 CWP No.10464 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Nachhatar Singh & ors. 101 CWP No.10472 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Harminder Singh & ors. 102 CWP No.10478 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board & ors. Vs. Labh Singh & ors. 103 CWP No.10720 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Rakesh Kumar & ors. 104 CWP No.10998 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Ladhu Ram & ors. 105 CWP No.12302 of 2014 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar & anr. 106 CWP No.13204 of 2014 State of Punjab etc. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr.
43 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 44 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 107 CWP No.13210 of 2014 State of Punjab etc. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr. 108 CWP No.13215 of 2014 State of Punjab etc. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr. 109 CWP No.13222 of 2014 State of Punjab etc. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr. 110 CWP No.14656 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Billu Ram & ors. 111 CWP No.14657 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Shambu Ram & ors. 112 CWP No.14658 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Rajinder Parsad & anr. 113 CWP No.14672 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ram Lalit & ors. 114 CWP No.14673 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Chand Singh & ors. 115 CWP No.14674 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Gurunaib Singh & ors. 116 CWP No.14685 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Gyan Singh & ors. 117 CWP No.14696 of 2014 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Dwarka Dass & ors. 118 CWP No.19284 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Amarjeet Sharma & anr.
119 CWP No.19285 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Rattan Paul Sharma & ors.
120 CWP No.19287 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Vijay Paul & anr. 121 CWP No.19410 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 122 CWP No.19411 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 123 CWP No.19412 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 124 CWP No.19413 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 125 CWP No.19414 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 126 CWP No.19415 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 127 CWP No.19416 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 128 CWP No.19417 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 129 CWP No.19418 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 130 CWP No.19419 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 131 CWP No.19420 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 132 CWP No.19421 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 133 CWP No.19422 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 134 CWP No.19423 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 135 CWP No.19424 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 136 CWP No.19425 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 137 CWP No.19426 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 138 CWP No.19427 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors.
44 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 45 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 139 CWP No.19428 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 140 CWP No.19429 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 141 CWP No.19430 of 2014 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 142 CWP No.20708 of 2014 Municipal Council Kotkapura Vs. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 143 CWP No.20709 of 2014 Municipal Council Kotkapura Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 144 CWP No.23048 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Darshan Singh & anr.
145 CWP No.23053 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Mehar Singh & anr. 146 CWP No.23085 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Batra & anr.
147 CWP No.23087 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & anr.
148 CWP No.23252 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Aggarwal & anr.
149 CWP No.23551 of 2014 Municipal Council, SAS Nagar, Mohali Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
150 CWP No.23800 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Bhupinder Singh Beldar & anr.
151 CWP No.23935 of 2014 Municipal Council, SAS Nagar, Mohali Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
152 CWP No.24393 of 2014 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & ors.
153 CWP No.24782 of 2014 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & anr.
154 CWP No.24769 of 2014 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Baljit Singh & anr. 155 CWP No.26658 of 2014 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sohan Lal & ors. 156 CWP No.1747 of 2015 Municipal Council, Rajpur Vs. Dharam Singh & ors.
157 CWP No.1727 of 2015 Municipal Council, Rajpura Vs. Ram Bhajan & ors.
158 CWP No.1832 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Rajinder Singh & anr.
159 CWP No.2231 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board & ors. Vs. Veer Singh & ors. 160 CWP No.2234 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Piara Singh & anr. 161 CWP No.2260 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Malkit Singh & ors. 162 CWP No.2271 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Manjit Singh & anr.
163 CWP No.2272 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Dev Raj & anr. 164 CWP No.2277 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Hansa Singh & anr. 165 CWP No.3072 of 2015 Municipal Council, Malerkotla Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & ors.
166 CWP No.3231 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Amar Singh & ors. 167 CWP No.3920 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
168 CWP No.4111 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
169 CWP No.4120 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
45 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 46 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 170 CWP No.4121 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
171 CWP No.4122 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
172 CWP No.4126 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
173 CWP No.4127 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
174 CWP No.4139 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
175 CWP No.4268 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
176 CWP No.4278 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
177 CWP No.4279 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
178 CWP No.4280 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
179 CWP No.4281 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
180 CWP No.4282 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
181 CWP No.4283 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
182 CWP No.4284 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
183 CWP No.4285 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
184 CWP No.4286 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
185 CWP No.4288 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
186 CWP No.4287 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
187 CWP No.4378 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
188 CWP No.4385 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
189 CWP No.4386 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
190 CWP No.4389 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
191 CWP No.4390 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
192 CWP No.4409 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
193 CWP No.4430 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
194 CWP No.4431 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
195 CWP No.4523 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
196 CWP No.4524 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
197 CWP No.4525 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
198 CWP No.4526 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
46 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 47 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 199 CWP No.4527 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
200 CWP No.4543 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
201 CWP No.4544 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
202 CWP No.4545 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
203 CWP No.4559 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
204 CWP No.4560 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
205 CWP No.4561 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
206 CWP No.4581 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
207 CWP No.4598 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
208 CWP No.4600 of 2015 Nagar Council Kotkapura Vs. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 209 CWP No.4937 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
210 CWP No.4976 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
211 CWP No.4982 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
212 CWP No.5008 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
213 CWP No.5907 of 2015 State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & anr. 214 CWP No.6187 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
215 CWP No.6204 of 2015 Darshan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer & ors. 216 CWP No.6211 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
217 CWP No.6235 of 2015 Nishan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer & ors. 218 CWP No.6245 of 2015 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer & ors. 219 CWP No.6255 of 2015 Gurmit Singh Vs. Presiding Officer & ors. 220 CWP No.6410 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD. B&R, Patiala & anr. Vs. Lachhman Dass & anr 221 CWP No.6411 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Deepak Batra & anr.
222 CWP No.6412 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Lakha Singh etc. 223 CWP No.6413 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD. B&R, Patiala & anr. Vs. Sukhdev Singh & anr.
224 CWP No.6414 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD. B&R, Patiala & ors. Vs. Madan Gopal & anr.
225 CWP No.6415 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD. B&R, Patiala & anr. Vs. Ram Ujagar & anr.
226 CWP No.6416 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.1, PWD. B&R, Patiala & anr. Vs. Mewa Singh & anr.
47 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 48 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 227 CWP No.6425 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Moti Lal etc. 228 CWP No.6725 of 2015 Anokha Singh Vs. Presiding Officer & ors. 229 CWP No.6788 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & ors.
230 CWP No.7207 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Major Singh & ors. 231 CWP No.7209 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Nirbhai Singh & ors. 232 CWP No.7604 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Balbir Singh & ors. 233 CWP No.7609 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Tarsem Lal & ors. 234 CWP No. 7624 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ram Bahadur 235 CWP No. 7636 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jugraj Singh & ors. 236 CWP No.7740 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Mansukh Singh & ors.
237 CWP No.8063 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ram Sunder & anr. 238 CWP No.8331 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Surjit Singh & anr. 239 CWP No.8332 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Hurshi Kesh & ors. 240 CWP No.8470 of 2015 Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Vs. Manjit Kaur etc. 241 CWP No.8475 of 2015 Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Vs. Isher Singh etc. 242 CWP No.8994 of 2015 The Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Puran Singh & ors.
243 CWP No.9000 of 2015 The Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Banso Devi & ors.
244 CWP No.9219 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Puran Singh & anr. 245 CWP No.9218 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Gurshinderpal & anr. 246 CWP No.9220 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Puran Singh & anr. 247 CWP No.9221 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sukhdev Singh & anr. 248 CWP No.9222 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Tarlochan Singh & anr. 249 CWP No.9223 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Surinder Singh & anr. 250 CWP No.9224 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jagtar Singh & anr. 251 CWP No.9456 of 2015 Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Vs. Shiv Kumar & anr.
252 CWP No.9458 of 2015 Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Vs. Kulwinder Kaur etc. 253 CWP No.9893 of 2015 Nagar Council, Abohar Vs. Pritam Singh etc. 254 CWP No.9904 of 2015 Nagar Council, Abohar Vs. Dharam Pal etc. 255 CWP No.9905 of 2015 Nagar Council, Abohar Vs. Rani etc. 256 CWP No.9955 of 2015 Nagar Council, Abohar Vs. Hira Lal etc. 257 CWP No.9973 of 2015 Nagar Council, Abohar Vs. Bag Singh etc. 258 CWP No.11624 of 2015 Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Vs. Mangat Ram & ors.
259 CWP No.11377 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Abhay Raj & anr. 260 CWP No.11163 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Harjit Singh & anr. 261 CWP No.11804 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer and Janak Raj 262 CWP No.11986 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Presiding Officer and 48 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 49 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters Harbhajan Lal 263 CWP No.12985 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Gurnam Singh 264 CWP No.13281 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Bharpur Singh & anr.
265 CWP No.13291 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Ishar Singh & anr. 266 CWP No.13299 of 2015 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Narang Singh & anr.
267 CWP No.14031 of 2015 State of Punjab etc. Vs. Presiding Officer & anr. 268 CWP No.14973 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Hira Lal etc. 269 CWP No.14983 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Ravi Hussain etc. 270 CWP No.14984 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. etc. Sukhdev Singh etc. 271 CWP No.14985 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Madan Lal etc. 272 CWP No.14986 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Gurcharan Singh etc. 273 CWP No.14987 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Hukam Chand etc. 274 CWP No.14988 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Mohan Lal etc. 275 CWP No.14989 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Gurmeet Singh etc. 276 CWP No.14990 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Jang Singh etc. 277 CWP No.14991 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Ajmer Singh etc. 278 CWP No.14992 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Om Parkash etc. 279 CWP No.14993 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Neel Money etc. 280 CWP No.14994 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Raghubir Chand etc. 281 CWP No.14995 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Santokh Singh etc. 282 CWP No.14996 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Dudh Nath etc. 283 CWP No.15720 of 2015 Executive Engineer etc. Vs. Parveen Kumar etc. 284 CWP No.16171 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors.Vs. Gurdeep Singh & ors.
285 CWP No.16284 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors.Vs. France Masih 286 CWP No.16850 of 2015 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sohan Lal & ors. 287 CWP No.18156 of 2015 The State of Punjab & ors.Vs. Shiv Dayal & anr. 288 CWP No.20647 of 2015 Pawan Kumar & ors. Vs. The State of Punjab & ors.
289 CWP No.21144 of 2015 Punjab Water Resources Management & Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Zila Singh & others 290 CWP No.21211 of 2015 Municipal Corporation Ludhiana through its Commissioner Vs. Paramjit Singh & ors.
291 CWP No.26154 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana through its Commissioner Vs. Bhagirath & others 292 CWP No.646 of 2016 Director, Horticulture, Punjab & ors. Vs. Harmesh Chand & ors.
293 CWP No.3011 of 2016 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ram Saran & ors. 294 CWP No.5641 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Kanwaljit Singh & anr. 295 CWP No.5640 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Jit Kaur & anr. 296 CWP No.5642 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Jasbir Kaur & anr.
49 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 50 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 297 CWP No.5647 of 2016 State of Punjab, Department of Transport Punjab & anr. Vs. Surjit Mahinder Singh & anr.
298 CWP No.5648 of 2016 State of Punjab, Department of Transport Punjab & anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh & anr.
299 CWP No.5650 of 2016 State of Punjab, Department of Transport Punjab & anr. Vs. Baltej Singh & anr.
300 CWP No.5651 of 2016 State of Punjab, Department of Transport Punjab & anr. Vs. Gurmeet Singh & anr.
301 CWP No.5652 of 2016 State of Punjab, Department of Transport Punjab & anr. Vs. Salwant Singh & anr.
302 CWP No.5726 of 2016 The Secretary to Govt. of Punjab & anr. Vs. Dal Bahadur & anr.
303 CWP No.7639 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Harpal Singh & anr. 304 CWP No.7640 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Bikkar Singh & anr. 305 CWP No.7642 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Gursewak Singh & anr. 306 CWP No.7643 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Paramjeet Singh & anr. 307 CWP No.7644 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Geja Singh & anr. 308 CWP No.7670 of 2016 Secretary/Financial Commissioner Development Agriculture, Punjab & ors. Vs. Makhan Singh & ors.
309 CWP No.7671 of 2016 Secretary/Financial Commissioner Development Agriculture, Punjab & ors. Vs. Lachhmi Devi & ors.
310 CWP No.7684 of 2016 Secretary/Financial Commissioner Development Agriculture, Punjab & ors. Vs. Sohan Lal & ors. 311 CWP No.7692 of 2016 Secretary/Financial Commissioner Development Agriculture, Punjab & ors. Vs. Teja Singh & ors. 312 CWP No.7693 of 2016 Secretary/Financial Commissioner Development Agriculture, Punjab & ors. Vs. Bhajan Ram & ors. 313 CWP No.7694 of 2016 Secretary/Financial Commissioner Development Agriculture, Punjab & ors. Vs. H.P.Singh & ors. 314 CWP No.8112 of 2016 State of Punjab & anr. Vs. Sajjan Singh & anr. 315 CWP No.10747 of 2016 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Ajit Singh & anr. 316 CWP No.11889 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Varinderjeet Puri & ors.
317 CWP No.15894 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Rajinder Kumar & ors.
318 CWP No.15950 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Arvind Singh & ors.
319 CWP No.16286 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Rajinder Singh & ors.
320 CWP No.16287 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Manoj Kumar & ors.
321 CWP No.16463 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Lovkush & ors.
322 CWP No.16467 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Rajesh Kumar & ors.
323 CWP No.16517 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Sukhwinder Singh & ors.
324 CWP No.16518 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Arun Kumar & ors.
325 CWP No.16519 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Rakesh Thapar & ors.
326 CWP No.16520 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Sham Sunder & ors.
50 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 51 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 327 CWP No.16521 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Ashok Kumar & ors.
328 CWP No.16522 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Surinder Kumar & ors.
329 CWP No.16609 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Raman Kumar & ors.
330 CWP No.16610 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Jagar Singh & ors.
331 CWP No.16611 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Faqir Chand Sharma & ors.
332 CWP No.16612 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Balvir Singh & ors.
333 CWP No.16613 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Amarjit Singh & ors.
334 CWP No.16614 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Mukesh Kumar & ors.
335 CWP No.16692 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Karam Singh & ors.
336 CWP No.16693 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Hukam Chand & ors.
337 CWP No.16694 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Swarn Chand & ors.
338 CWP No.16695 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Vijay Kumar & ors.
339 CWP No.16696 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Sunil Kumar & ors.
340 CWP No.16697 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Lachhaman Dass Sharma & ors.
341 CWP No.16698 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Vijay Kumar & ors.
342 CWP No.16699 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Gurdev Singh & ors.
343 CWP No.16700 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Dewan Chand & ors.
344 CWP No.16701 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Hari Kishan & ors.
345 CWP No.16702 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Nachhatar Singh & ors.
346 CWP No.16703 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors.
347 CWP No.16704 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Mangal Mal & ors.
348 CWP No.16705 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Des Raj & ors. 349 CWP No.16706 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Om Parkash & ors.
350 CWP No.16707 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Kuldeep Singh & ors.
351 CWP No.16708 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Ram Kumar Sharma & ors.
352 CWP No.16709 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Madan Gopal & ors.
353 CWP No.16710 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Karam Singh & ors.
354 CWP No.16711 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Gurcharan Singh Sidhu & ors.
355 CWP No.16712 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Harpreet Kaur & ors.
51 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 52 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 356 CWP No.16713 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Gurdial singh & ors.
357 CWP No. 16714 of Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Jatinder Pal
2016 Singh & ors.
358 CWP No. 16715 of Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Jagmohan Lal
2016 & ors.
359 CWP No.16716 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Vishal Kumar
& ors.
360 CWP No.16717 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Bua Ditta &
ors.
361 CWP No.16982 of 2016 Municipal Corporation Ferozepur Vs. The
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors.
362 CWP No.18298 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Vs. Hardeep Singh & ors.
363 CWP No.19267 of 2016 Municipal Council, Patiala Vs. Puran Chand & ors.
364 CWP No.20564 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Nachhatter Singh & ors.
365 CWP No.20565 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Gurnam Singh & ors.
366 CWP No.20566 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Bharpur Singh & ors.
367 CWP No.20567 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Jasmel Singh & ors. 368 CWP No.20568 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Balbir Singh & ors. 369 CWP No.20569 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Jaswinder Singh & ors.
370 CWP No.20570 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Baldev Singh & ors. 371 CWP No.20571 of 2016 The Punjab Mandi Board Vs. Gurshwinder Singh & ors.
372 CWP No.21661 of 2016 Punjab Water Rsources Management & Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Guljar Singh & others 373 CWP No.22791 of 2016 Director Animal Husbandry Punjab & ors. Vs. Ramjeet & ors.
374 CWP No.23543 of 2016 Executive Engineer & ors. Vs. Amarjeet Kaur & anr.
375 CWP No.25140 of 2016 Chief Engineer & ors. Vs. Sant Ram & anr. 376 CWP No.25325 of 2016 Municipal Council Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & ors. 377 CWP No.25726 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Karam Singh & ors.
378 CWP No.25728 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Arun Kumar & ors.
379 CWP No.25729 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Amar Nath & ors. 380 CWP No.25730 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Harkirat Singh & ors.
381 CWP No.25731 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Sudarshan Jain & ors.
382 CWP No.25732 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Raj Kumar & ors. 383 CWP No.25734 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Mohinder Singh & ors.
384 CWP No.25735 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Labh Singh & ors. 385 CWP No.928 of 2017 Director Horticulture Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & anr.
52 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 53 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 386 CWP No.932 of 2017 Director Horticulture Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & anr. 387 CWP No.933 of 2017 Director Horticulture Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & anr. 388 CWP No.934 of 2017 Director Horticulture Punjab & anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & anr. 389 CWP No.4623 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Nahar Singh & ors.
390 CWP No.4624 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Harbhajan Singh & ors.
391 CWP No.5619 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Mohinder Singh & ors.
392 CWP No.5620 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Jit Singh & ors. 393 CWP No.5621 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Madan Dass & ors.
394 CWP No.5622 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Jagan Nath & ors. 395 CWP No.5623 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Surjit Singh & ors.
396 CWP No.5624 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Daljit Kumar & ors.
397 CWP No.5625 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Ramesh Kumar & ors.
398 CWP No.5626 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Jarnail Singh & ors.
399 CWP No.5627 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Parab Dayal & ors.
400 CWP No.5628 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Baldev Krishan & ors.
401 CWP No.5629 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh & ors.
402 CWP No.5630 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs.Mangal Singh & anr. 403 CWP No.5635 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs.Ranbir Singh & anr. 404 CWP No.5636 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs.Sat Pal & anr. 405 CWP No.5637 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs.Mohinder Singh & anr. 406 CWP No.5638 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Balbir Singh & anr. 407 CWP No.5639 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh & anr. 408 CWP No.5640 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jaspal Singh & anr. 409 CWP No.5654 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Darshan Singh & anr. 410 CWP No.5656 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh & anr. 411 CWP No.5666 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Joti Ram & ors. 412 CWP No.5748 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Harbans Singh & ors.
413 CWP No.5768 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Karnail Singh & ors.
414 CWP No.5775 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Vs. Ballu Singh & ors.
415 CWP No.5921 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Balkar Singh & anr. 416 CWP No.5922 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jit Singh & anr. 417 CWP No.6226 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & anr. 418 CWP No.6535 of 2017 Kasturi Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
53 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 54 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 419 CWP No.6536 of 2017 Baldev Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
420 CWP No.6537 of 2017 Ajit Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
421 CWP No.6538 of 2017 Madan Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
422 CWP No.6539 of 2017 Lovepreet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
423 CWP No.6540 of 2017 Paramjit Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
424 CWP No.6541 of 2017 Dilbagh Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
425 CWP No.6542 of 2017 Krishan Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
426 CWP No.6543 of 2017 Sadiq Masih Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
427 CWP No.6544 of 2017 Janak Raj Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
428 CWP No.6545 of 2017 Pawan Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
429 CWP No.6546 of 2017 Harjinder Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
430 CWP No.6547 of 2017 Krishan Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
431 CWP No.6548 of 2017 Jagtar Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
432 CWP No.6549 of 2017 Raj Anthony Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
433 CWP No.6550 of 2017 Rajinder Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
434 CWP No.6551 of 2017 Gurdeep Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
435 CWP No.6552 of 2017 Jit Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
436 CWP No.6553 of 2017 Ajaib Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
437 CWP No.6554 of 2017 Deepak Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
438 CWP No.6555 of 2017 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
439 CWP No.6556 of 2017 Nishan Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
440 CWP No.6557 of 2017 Shamaun Gill Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
441 CWP No.6558 of 2017 Joginder Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
442 CWP No.6559 of 2017 Charanjit Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
443 CWP No.6560 of 2017 Anil Luthra Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
444 CWP No.6561 of 2017 Raman Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
445 CWP No.6562 of 2017 Paramjit Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
446 CWP No.6563 of 2017 Parshotam SinghVs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
447 CWP No.6564 of 2017 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
54 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 ::: 55 CWP No.4088 of 2015 & other connected matters 448 CWP No.6565 of 2017 Rajinder Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
449 CWP No.6566 of 2017 Anoop Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
450 CWP No.6567 of 2017 Madan Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
451 CWP No.6568 of 2017 Sat Pal Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
452 CWP No.6569 of 2017 Mukesh Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
453 CWP No.6570 of 2017 Jaspal Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
454 CWP No.6571 of 2017 Shehbaz Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
455 CWP No.6572 of 2017 Hazura Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
456 CWP No.6573 of 2017 Ranbir Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
457 CWP No.7356 of 2017 Sucha Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
458 CWP No.7359 of 2017 Harbhajan Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
459 CWP No.7361 of 2017 Sukhdev Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
460 CWP No.7363 of 2017 Varinder Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
461 CWP No.7364 of 2017 Tilak Raj Maini Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
462 CWP No.7366 of 2017 Yash Pal Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
463 CWP No.7368 of 2017 Raj Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
464 CWP No.7370 of 2017 Raj Davinder Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
465 CWP No.7372 of 22017 Varinderjit Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
466 CWP No.7373 of 2017 Shamsher Masih Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
467 CWP No.7374 of 2017 Dilbagh Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
468 CWP No.7375 of 2017 Surinder Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
469 CWP No.7376 of 2017 Vinod Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation Amritsar & ors.
470 CWP No.7382 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Joginder Singh & anr. 471 CWP No.7387 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Bishna Ram & anr. 472 CWP No.7457 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Shingara Singh & anr. 473 CWP No.7548 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Sultan Masih & anr. 474 CWP No.7554 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Lamber & anr. 475 CWP No.7555 of 2017 State of Punjab & ors. Vs.Tarsem Lal & anr.
23.08.2017 [RAJIV NARAIN RAINA]
Vimal JUDGE
55 of 55
::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2017 04:56:17 :::