CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7646 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 08 ,2010 Neeraj Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7646 of 2009 (Neeraj Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another), 8199 of 2009 (Ram Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another), 8210 of 2009 (Surindera Wati and another Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another), 8211 of 2009 (Surinder Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another), 8212 of 2009 (Surjeet CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7646 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: Kaur, L.R. of Puran Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another) and 8228 of 2009 (Vinod Kumar and others L.Rs of Suhag Rani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.7646 of 2009. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have impugned the award dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Labour Court, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-4 with Civil Writ Petition No.7646 of 2009, on the ground that the same is illegal and arbitrary. The father of the petitioner was in service of respondent No.2 as a Clerk. He performed his duties from 1.1.1989 to 30.6.2000. Being employed in the Octroi Department, the father of the petitioner was made to perform duties on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The employees like Peons and Clerks working in the office, however, were enjoying Saturdays, Sundays, Gazetted and National holidays whereas the persons like the petitioner were made to work on all these days. The petitioners accordingly raised an issue before respondent No.2 but he declined to accept their prayer for making payment for working on holidays and Sundays. Aggrieved against this action of the respondents, 43 employees filed Civil Writ Petition No.18290 of 1991 before this Court. The writ petition, however, was dismissed on 29.5.1997. The petitioners impugned the said order by filing Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The S.L.Ps, which were converted as Civil Appeal No.8434 of 1997, were disposed of by passing a common order and a direction was issued that those employees who had worked on Saturdays and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7646 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Sundays are entitled to monetary benefits for the service rendered by them on these days of holidays. The petitioners were, however, given liberty to file an application under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). While disposing of the Civil Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further directed that those employees, who had filed the writ petitions before the High Court during the years 1991 or early 1992, could get monetary benefits for a period of three years immediately preceding the filing of said petitions and thereafter continuously upto date. Even the retired employees were held entitled to claim the benefit, which was required to be computed till the date of retirement. Complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners filed applications under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Patiala, on 27.6.2000. All the 43 employees have so filed the applications before the Labour Court. These applications have been decided together. The petitioners have been denied payment for the period prior to the date of filing the writ petition on the ground that they were not a party in the writ petition before this Court. As per the petitioners, this fact was fully proved on record before the Labour Court. The petitioners accordingly have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that this finding is prima-facie erroneous. This fact can easily be established by making reference to the record of Civil Writ Petition No.18290 of 1991. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was noticed by this Court while issuing notice of motion on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7646 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: 20.5.2009, which is reproduced below:- “Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the father of the petitioner i.e. Dhanpat Rai, the claimant, who had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was not the petitioner before the High Court or party in Hon'ble the Supreme Court, is incorrect. He submits that merely because the Labour Court had proceeded on the assumption that he was not a party to the writ petition, the claim of the workman prior to three years from the date of filing of the application has been held to be delayed. He refers to Annexure P-1, which is a writ preferred by the Octroi Clerks and the name of Shri Dhanpat Rai finds mention at Sr.No.5. Notice of motion for 14.07.2009.” The respondents have filed a written statement and have contested the prayer made in the petitions. It is also pointed out that the question to be considered is whether these employees had actually worked on Saturdays and Sundays. It is pleaded that these employees have not given any credible evidence to prove this fact. As per the respondents, the burden to prove this fact was on the petitioners, which they could not discharge. It is also stated that the matter would be outside the scope of proceedings under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel continued CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7646 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: to join serious issues on the aspect whether father of the petitioner (in C.W.P. No.7646 of 2009) and the petitioners in other connected writ petitions were party to Civil Writ Petition No.18290 of 1991. Counsel for the petitioners maintained that they were very much party in the said writ petition whereas this fact was disputed by counsel for respondent No.2. Since this issue could easily be resolved by making reference to the record of Civil Writ Petition No.18290 of 1991, the same was summoned for perusal. I have seen the record of Civil Writ Petition No.18290 of 1991. The father of the petitioner, Dhanpat Rai, is mentioned as petitioner No.5 in the memo of parties. Similarly, counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the fact that the petitioners in the remaining writ petitions are parties to the writ petition, being Petitioner Nos.2, 10, 22, 33 and 36. Accordingly, this fact can not be a subject matter in dispute as is clear from the record of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners has made reference to impugned award, Annexure P-4. The counsel has referred to that part of the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioners were not party to the writ petition filed in the years 1991-1992 and so were not party to the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the petitioners have now been found to be party to the writ petition, the finding given by the Labour Court on the basis that they were not party can not be sustained. The counsel is also justified in submitting that the claim of the petitioners would require to be adjudicated in the light of the fact that they were found to be working on Saturdays and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7646 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: Sundays as their claim for monetary benefits from 28.6.1997 to 27.6.2000, has been allowed. Their claim for monetary benefits three years prior to filing of the writ petition was only declined on the ground that they were not party to the writ petition. This finding has now been found to be factually incorrect. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court would need to be modified. The petitioners are held entitled to claim monetary benefits three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, as has been done in the case of some identical placed persons. Any amount now becoming due, be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. December 08,2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE