IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4236 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 19, 2009. Municipal Committee, Rajpura. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure-P-1), vide which an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been moved by the respondent-workman, has been accepted by the Labour Court on the ground that the respondent- workman as per the orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997, decided on 15.03.2000, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court had held the workman entitled to monetary benefits for Saturdays and Sundays and which they had rendered service with the petitioner-Municipal Committee. Counsel for the petitioner-Municipal Committee contends that the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is barred by time as the workman had retired on 30.04.1998 whereas the present application has been moved by the workman on 06.06.2000. The present application has been moved by the workman in pursuance to the orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997, decided on 15.03.2000, wherein liberty was granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to the workmen to file their applications under Section 33-C(2) of the C.W.P. No. 4236 of 2009. Industrial Disputes Act for claiming their monetary benefits. This contention, therefore, of counsel for the petitioner-Committee, cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, contends that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the attendance records marked Mark- A-1 to Mark-A-192. A perusal of the records would show that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the relevant records which have been produced by the petitioner-Committee before the Court. The records which have been produced by the petitioner-Committee despite there being called upon, an adverse inference has been drawn against the petitioner-Committee. In this view of the matter, this contention raised by counsel for the petitioner- Committee also cannot be accepted. He, thereafter, contends that the respondent-workman has been entitled to the claim which has been calculated by him and therefore, the same having been disputed by the petitioner-Committee, should not have been granted. This contention of counsel for the petitioner-Committee, cannot be accepted as the calculations made by the respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been disputed by the respondent-workman, however, while granting relief, the Labour Court has held the respondent-workman entitled to receive the amount specified therein subject to departmental calculations, therefore, this contention of counsel for the petitioner-Committee cannot be of any help to the petitioner-Committee. Finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 19, 2009. sjks. -2-