( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2955 OF 2009 1. The Superintending Engineer, Sarvajanik Bandhkam Mandal, Osmanabad. 2. The Executive Engineer, Sarvajanik Bandhkam Vibhag, Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 3. Dy. Engineer, Sarvajanik Bandhkam Up-Vibhag, Udgir. PETITIONERS VERSUS General Secretary, Marathwada Lal Bavta Kamgar Union, Trade Union Centre, Jalkot Road, Dist. Latur. RESPONDENT .... Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the petitioners. Mr. Balaji B. Yenge, advocate for the respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8060 OF 2009 1. The Superintending Engineer, Sarvajanik Bandhkam Mandal, Osmanabad. 2. The Executive Engineer, Sarvajanik Bandhkam Vibhag, Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 3. Dy. Engineer, Sarvajanik Bandhkam Up-Vibhag, Udgir. PETITIONERS VERSUS General Secretary, Marathwada Lal Bavta Kamgar Union, ( 2 ) Trade Union Centre, Jalkot Road, Dist. Latur. RESPONDENT .... Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the petitioners. Mr. V.U. Jadhav, advocate holding for Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, advocate for the respondent. [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd August, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Both these petitions are being disposed of together in as much as identical issues of facts and law are involved therein. 2. The petitioners are challenging judgement and order rendered by learned Member of Industrial Court, Latur, in complaint applications (ULP) No. 328/2004 and 310/2004. By the impugned judgements and orders, the learned Member of the Industrial Court allowed the complaint applications of the respondents and directed that the workmen shall be paid the monetary benefits as agreed under the Kalelkar Award. 3. It appears that the employees of the petitioners filed the complaint applications alleging that they were subjected to unfair labour practices by the petitioners. They ( 3 ) submitted that they were not being paid leave encashment as well as the benefits of the Government Resolutions regarding admissibility of such facility of encashment. The workmen were admittedly recipients of the monetary benefits permissible to Class-IV employees as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. The petitioners, however, did not consider their demand for grant of the monetary benefits regarding the work done on holidays. The respondents submitted that the workmen were entitled to receive double of the amount of each day’s salary payable to them in lieu of the work done on holidays. The petitioners contended that the workmen were not entitled to receive such monetary benefits. The learned Member of the Industrial Court rejected the contentions of the petitioners. The learned Member of the Industrial Court held that the petitioners were bound to pay such amount in view of “Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. and others v. Kokan Sarvajanik Bandhkam Va Patbandhare Kamgar Sangh” 2003 I CLR 273 and also as per the terms of the Kalelkar Award. 4. Heard learned AGP for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. In view of the nature of controversy, it is not necessary to elaborately consider any other question except ( 4 ) and save the entitlement of the workmen to receive monetary benefits for the work done on the holidays. There is no dispute about the fact that as per the Government policy, the holidays are required to be granted to the workmen. No workman can be compelled to do work on holidays. In order to obviate the contingency of unavailability of workmen on holidays, the monetary benefit was considered while rendering the Kalelkar Award. The term No. 5 of Kalelkar Award shows that a workman is entitled to double of the salary of one day for doing work of a single holiday. The learned Member of the Industrial Court rightly referred to “Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. and others v. Kokan Sarvajanik Bandhkam Va Patbandhare Kamgar Sangh” 2003 I CLR 273. It is pertinent to notice that the Superintending Engineer of Ratnagiri P.W.D. has issued a letter dated 10-12-2002 in this behalf. A copy of the letter is placed on record by learned counsel for the respondent (marked “X”). 6. Now, when such monetary benefits are made available to the employees working on establishment of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. at Ratnagiri, the same cannot be denied to the similarly placed workmen who are employed in the other regions like Osmanabad. It would amount to illegal ( 5 ) discrimination. Considering the foregoing reasons, there appears no much merit in the petitions. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, both the petitions are dismissed. The interim relief stands vacated. Rule is discharged accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2955-8060-09