CWP No.6615 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.6615 of 1993 Date of decision February 17, 2010 Labh Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. K. L. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioners who claim to be firemen for the Fire Engines, N.A. C. , S.A.S. Nagar(Mohali) since 1.3.1985 have a grievance that they have not been paid wages during national holidays when they were required to work and several other Saturdays and Sundays when they were required to work without any compensatory holiday while other employees of the NAC had been granted similar benefits. It was discriminatory on their part that they had not been granted the benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others Vs. State of Punjab and others in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 disposed of on 15.3.2000 when the Court held that the writ petitioners could not get any more monetary benefits except for three years immediately proceeding the filing of such petitions and thereafter continuously upto date subject to the conditions that the appellants who had been prosecuted in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would file appropriate application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and computation be made for each Saturday for which they have worked while the others had enjoyed the benefit of Saturday provided 52 Saturdays in the calendar year were CWP No.6615 of 1993 2 enjoyed by the employees of the State Government as holidays. The further contention was that if the State Government employees had enjoyed such a benefit but the Municipal Committee had promulgated at the relevant time any bye law under which the working condition of the said employees was described to be six working days then the question of grant of monetary benefit would not survive. On the other hand, if there was no such bye laws the appellants would also be entitled to the benefit for Saturdays as holidays. 3. This Court has also passed a similar order while considering the claims of several employees in the Octroi Branch and Supply Branch of Nagar Council when it directed that the petitioners would be entitled to the monetary benefits similarly enjoyed by the other persons and that they would be at liberty to apply under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. On the date when the case is posted for hearing apart from the counsel for the petitioner only the first respondent is represented by the learned Additional Advocate General. The third respondent has not been represented by any counsel. If there were other employees of NAC who were allowed the benefit of Saturdays off and the petitioners were not covered by any different regulations, they shall be similarly treated and they shall also be entitled to the same as prescribed for them for the days when they had worked for Saturdays. If the petitioners had worked also on National and gazetted holidays and they were not provided any compensatory holiday, the petitioners would like wise be entitled to the monetary benefits for the days when they worked on such holidays, the right of enforcement of the petitioner shall survive in the manner as provided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1500 of 2000 referred to above. There shall be a direction to the Municipal Committee to calculate the amounts payable to each one of the petitioners for all the CWP No.6615 of 1993 3 holidays that they have worked without any compensatory holidays and it shall be paid for three years prior to the filing of the writ petition till date or till the last date of service which ever is earlier. For any default on the part of the respondents the petitioners shall have remedy before the appropriate authorities constituted for payment of wages. It is hoped that the authorities will calculate the amounts expeditiously and having regard to the fact that the litigation has prolonged for over 17 years, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 17, 2010 archana