1 wp2260.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 1992 General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Udgir. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Shivaji Basvantrao Patil, Age: Major, Occ: Service, 2. D.P. Yengale, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 3. Omprakashj Karbasappa Vishwanathe, Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, 4. V.B. Rathod, Age: 32 years, Occ: Service, 5. A.N. Kendre, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 6. V.V. Nagrale, Age: 35 years, Occ: Service, 7. V.G. Konable, Age: 35 years, Occ: Service, 8. U.G. Panchal, Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, 9. Shaikh Igbal, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 2 wp2260.92 10. S.M. Kanthe, Age: 35 years, Occ: Service, 11. L.E. Biradar, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 12. S.V. Chavan, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 13. A.R. Awasthi, Age: 32 years, Occ: Service, 14. S.N. Ghanshi, Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, 15. Shaikh M.S. Age: 35 years, Occ: Service, 16. Khadri S.M. Age: 32 years, Occ: Service, 17. Patil D.N. Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, 18. Thakur R.B. Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, All R/o. Udgir, c/o. Govt. Milk Scheme, Udgir, Dist.Latur. ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2261 OF 1992 General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Udgir. ...APPELLANT 3 wp2260.92 VERSUS Damodhar Dattatraya Patwari, Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, C/o. C.N. Shinde, General Secretary, Trade Union Office, Udgir, Dist.Latur. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2262 OF 1992 General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Udgir. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Vithal Shankarrao Shendre, Occ: Service, 2. Dawar Shakh Lonikar, Occ: Service, 3. P.K. Gaikwad, Occ: Service, 4. I.M. Shaikh, Occ : Service, All r/o. Udgir, C/o. Govt. Milk Scheme, Udgir Dist.Latur. ...RESPONDENTS WITH 4 wp2260.92 WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 1992 General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Udgir. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1. V.V. Makne, Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, 2. M.N. Nilangekar, Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, 3. B.G. Shirure,, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 4. B.N. Ratnaparkhi, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 5. K.M. Rodge, Age: 33 years, Occ: Service, 6. Habibkhan Pathan, Age: 29 years, Occ: Service, 7. K.G. Jadhav, Age: 31 years, Occ: Service, All R/o. Udgir, c/o. Govt. Milk Scheme, Udgir, Dist.Latur. ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2266 OF 1992 General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Udgir. ...APPELLANT 5 wp2260.92 VERSUS 1. Chandrashekhar Madhavrao Deshmukh, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 2. Balaji Parbatrao Biradar, Age: 36 years, Occ: Service, 3. Balbhim Venkatrao Mane, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 4. Harikbhajan Ganpatrao Mane, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 5. Pandurang Govindrao Sonkamble, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 6. Vishwambhar Tukaram Waghmare, Age: 39 years, Occ: Service, 7. Abarao Laxmanrao Mane, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 8. Rajshekhar Sanmukhappa Wanka, Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, 9. Govind Dharmaji Kamble, Age: 33 years, Occ: Service, 10. Ku. Gushila Nagarao Gaikwad, Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, 11. Dhondiba Sadashiv Surwanshi, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 12. Sambhaji Madhavrao Kore, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 13. Baburao Vishwanath Nagthane, Age: 38 years, Occ: Service, 6 wp2260.92 14. Ramesh Mariba Gaikwad, Age: 33 years, Occ: Service, 15. Namdeo Gangaram Benkhadke, Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, 16. Shikh Mahmad Akbar Mahamed Sarwar, Age: 35 years, Occ: Service, All R/o. Udgir, c/o. Govt. Milk Scheme, Udgir, Dist.Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for petitioners. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 9TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 15-04-1991 in I.D.A. No.11/1987, dated 21-03-1991 in I.D.A. No.15/1987, dated 15-04-1991 in I.D.A. No.36/1987, dated 15-04-1991 in I.D.A. No.12/1987 and dated 15-04-1991 in I.D.A. No.10/1987 passed by learned Judge, Labour 7 wp2260.92 Court, Latur, in Writ Petition Nos.2260/1992, 2261/1992, 2262/1992, 2265/1992 and 2266/1992 respectively. 2. Respondents herein filed Disputes before the Judge, Labour Court at Latur, stating therein that they were serving as Clerk with the opponent i.e. petitioners herein. They were called upon to perform the duties on each Saturday in spite of the fact that, the five days week was declared by the Government with effect from 01-07-1985. It is their further case that, the work was extracted from them without making any payment for the duties which were performed by them on such Saturdays. Therefore, wages of such Saturdays are claimed by them with double rate as it it is over time duty. The petitioners herein resisted the claim vide Writ Statement Exhibit-C4 dated 08-01-1988. It was contended that the wages were paid to the respondents as per Daily Rated Labour Regulation 8 wp2260.92 Act. It was further pleaded that the applicants are not entitled to avail public holidays of Saturday. It was also pleaded that eight paid offs are paid to the workers in lieu of such public holidays. In such circumstances, applicants are not entitled to receive any compensation for having perform the duty as alleged by them. Therefore, it was prayed that the Disputes may be dismissed. 3. The Labour Court framed as many as three issues for its consideration/determination on 10-01-1989. The evidence of one of the workers is recorded at Exhibit-U2 of one Mr. Omprakash Vishwanathe. On behalf of the Department, it appears that evidence of the Administrative Officer, Mr. Shirishkumar Paralkar was recorded in I.D.A. No.10/1987. Both the parties agreed vide Exhibit-C.5 to consider that evidence for deciding the matter. The Labour Court has framed issue No.1 9 wp2260.92 i.e. Do the applicants 1 to 18 prove that they have worked for each Saturday since 01-07-1985 as alleged? Said issue is answered in the affirmative. It is not in dispute that all these employees have worked on Saturday. Even this position is not disputed by the State Government. The second issue whether each of the applicant is entitled to receive wages at the double rate for such duties. Said issue is answered in the negative. However, third issue i.e. whether joint application for such relief is tenable. The Court answered said issue in the affirmative. 4. It appears that, on considering the oral evidence and the submissions made before the Labour Court, Labour Court recorded finding that each of the worker is serving as a Clerk. Secondly, each of them had filed proceedings in the Labour Court for claiming wages equal to pay scale of Clerk, although each of them was engaged 10 wp2260.92 on daily rated wages. Though they are working on daily wages, as skilled worker, each of them is being paid the wages equal to the pay scale of the Class-III employee in the scale of Clerk. Though this fact is not pleaded by the parties, it appears that the Labour Court, from the perusal of the record, found that these employees are being paid the wages equal to the pay scale of the Class-III employees and the pay scale of Clerk. The claim of the applicants was restricted for having performed the duties of Saturdays for the period of Five days week is applicable as declared by the Government. The Labour Court concluded that if really each of the applicant is being paid wages equal to the pay scale of other permanent workers then the duties extracted from them are not for five days in a week but they are six days in a week. With this finding, the Labour Court held that the employees are entitled for wages having performed duties on Saturdays as a condition precedent and accordingly, the petitioner herein was directed to make the payment 11 wp2260.92 of the said amount. It is admitted position that the said amount has been already disbursed by the petitioner to the respondent-employees. 5. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record that the workers employed in a factory are entitled only for weekly off after having worked 6 days, the Government issued specific directions that the Scheme of 5 days week is not applicable to such employees. The Labour Court, Latur failed to appreciate the fact that the nature of the present application is in the nature of demand of the workers and therefore, does not fall within purview of the Section 33(C)(2) and expressly covered under Section 2-K of the Industrial Disputes Act and needs to be adjudicated by Industrial Court only. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the Labour Court lost the sight that proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) are in the nature of execution proceeding and are dependent on an existing rights only. The respondents have 12 wp2260.92 no right to claim wages at double rate when they are not covered under the 5 days week scheme. Learned A.G.P. also submitted that the Labour Court gave finding against issue NO.2 that the respondents are not entitled to receive wages at the double rate for such duties on Saturdays and yet directed for making payment as per order which is against the findings. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that the operative part of the judgment of the Labour Court is ambiguous and needs to be given judicial findings by this Hon'ble Court. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant prayed for allowing the Writ Petitions and for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed in the Industrial Dispute Applications, in question, by the Labour Court. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the employees were getting pay scale like permanent employees and therefore, they were also 13 wp2260.92 entitled to wages for their work on Saturday. Government cannot discriminate two sets of employees and extract work of Saturday without paying any wages, when Government has declared five days week. Therefore, learned Counsel for the respondents submit that petitions may be dismissed. 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties. I have also carefully perused the impugned judgment and order and also record and other documents placed on record. I am of the considered opinion that at the relevant time, Government declared five working days week. It is admitted position that the respondents-employees were getting wages equal to the pay scale of Class-III employees in the pay scale of Clerk. The petitioners cannot say that merely because they are not absorbed permanently, therefore, more work can be extracted from them on Saturday without payment of wages. It is the matter of 14 wp2260.92 fact that, all the employees have worked on Saturdays. That position is not disputed by the petitioners. So, each of the employee has worked one day more compared with the duty of other workers who are Class-III employees engaged in permanent establishment. 8. Labour Court has rightly concluded that no discrimination can be permitted in this regard by giving weekly holiday of one day for these applicants and two days to other employees of permanent establishment who are getting wages in the same pay scale. Nothing was produced by the petitioners to show that the payment of remuneration for the duties performed by the respondents-employees on Saturdays is paid to them. No such record was made available before the Labour Court. Therefore, in my opinion, Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence brought on record, has recorded finding in consonance with the documents and evidence placed on record. Once it is accepted that the 15 wp2260.92 respondents-employees have worked on Saturday and there was five working days week declared by the State Government and if, the respondents-employees have worked on Saturday i.e. 6th day, they are entitled for wages. I do not see any legal impediment or any provision brought to the notice of this Court, which prohibits payment of wages for working on 6th day when there is a five working days week declared by the Government. Therefore, in my view, and viewed from any angle, possible view has been taken by the Labour Court. Therefore, no interference is called for. It is relevant to mention that, respondents filed Contempt Petition before this Court. Since no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioners, in the Contempt proceedings, the petitioners have deposited amount and same was allowed to be withdrawn. Therefore, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, view taken by the Labour Court cannot be faulted. Hence, Writ Petitions are devoid of 16 wp2260.92 merits and same stands dismissed. Rule discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/Mar11/wp2260.92