IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP.NOs. 12215, 12216 & 12218 OF 2002 Between: WP.No. 12215 of 2002. The Commissioner Rajendranagar Municipality Mahboobnagar … Petitioner V/s. Labour Court-I Hyderabad Represented by its Presiding Officer & Anr. … Respondents Between: WP.No. 12216 of 2002 The Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, Mahboobnagar … Petitioner V/s. Labour Court-I, Hyderabad Represented by its Presiding Officer & Anr. … Respondents Between: WP.No. 12218 of 2002 The Commissioner Rajendranagar Municipality Mahboobnagar … Petitioner V/s. Labour Court-I, Hyderabad Represented by its Presiding Officer & Anr. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP.Nos. 12215, 12216 12218 OF 2002 COMMON ORDER : As common question of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These writ petitions filed by the Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, questioning the order dated 31- 12-2001 in MP.No. 78 of 2000, MP.No. 76 of 2000 and MP.No. 79 of 2000 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in a petition filed under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (for short “the Act”). The Labour Court-I by impugned order allowed the above Miscellaneous Petitions. Aggrieved by the same, these batch of writ petitions have been filed. The writ petitioner in all these writ petitions is one and the same and the workmen in the writ petitions are different. But the common relief is sought for in the Miscellaneous Petitions, therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. The workmen filed application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking to compute the benefits due to the petitioners-workmen in terms of money and to direct the respondent therein to pay the same to the petitioners-workmen. 4. The case of the workmen was that they were N.M.Rs., in the Water Works Department of the respondent- municipality. The employment of the petitioner under the respondent is a Schedule Employment within the meaning of Section 2-G of Minimum Wages Act, vide serial No.6 Employment under local authorities. Under Section 13 (1) (b) read with Rule 24 (2) and (4) the petitioner is entitled to one day as rest day with wages in every week. Whenever a workmen is employed on such rest day, he/she is entitled to over time wages at double rate under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act. As per the instructions of the respondent therein, the petitioner worked on all weekly off days i.e., Sundays and Public Holidays but no compensatory holidays are provided for these days and also no over time wages were paid. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to over time wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act. Under that Section, the work of a workman should not exceed 48 hours in a week and he shall be provided with a weekly off. If the worker works for more than eight hours on a day or more than 48 hours in a week, he/she shall be entitled to wages at double the ordinary wage for his/her over time work. The petitioners are not provided to avail any compensatory holidays for working on weekly offs and on paid holidays. The petitioners could not avail any compensatory holidays as the very nature of the duties assigned to the petitioners is that those duties are in the interest of public requiring his/her service every day as other wise the public health would be impaired. The respondent Municipality is an industry as defined under Section 2-J of Industrial Disputes Act and the petitioners are workmen as per the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioners have to get a sum of Rs.83,226/-, Rs.86,325/- and Rs.87,125/- respectively towards over time wages as detailed in the statement attached to the claim-petition. Therefore, they filed these writ petitions. 5. The case of the respondent-municipality (petitioner herein) is that firstly, the workman in WP.No.12215 of 2002 was employed as a regular Electrician and drawing regular scale of Rs.4430- 9300/6750/- as per the Revised Pay Scale, 1999 but not as NMR – Electrician; secondly, the workman in WP.No.12216 of 2002 was employed as a regular Fitter Bed Operator and drawing regular scale of Rs.4430-9300/7900/- as per the Revised Pay Scales, 1999 but not as NMR Fitter Bed Operator; thirdly, the workman in WP.No.12218 of 2002 was employed as a regular Pipe Line Fitter and drawing regular scale of Rs.4450-9600/7400/- as per the Revised Pay Scales, 1999 but not as NMR Pipe Line Fitter. The workmen are getting all benefits like casual leave, surrender leave and earned leave on par with the Government employees and the post in which they were appointed is a pensionable post. They are working only eight hours and availing weekly offs. There is no need to work over time, since there is a regular alternate arrangement and the workmen did not do over time work. The workmen and regular employees and they were paid more than the minimum wages fixed by the Government. The employees who are getting minimum rate wages are entitled for over time wages. The workmen are getting more than the minimum wages fixed by the Government and hence not entitled for the over time wages. They are permanent Government employees working as regular Electrician, Fitter Bed Operator and Pipe Line Fitter respectively. Factories Act is not applicable to the Government employees and the question of claiming overtime work by the workmen does not arise. The workmen are availing weekly offs, casual leaves and also earned leaves on par with the Government employees and there is no extra work done by them and the question of over time does not arise. The Municipality never issued any orders for the over time duty to them at any point of time, as there is an alternative arrangement to relieve the staff after duty period of eight hours. They never worked on Sundays, Festivals and National Holidays. In the event of any exigency of work, if any worker was asked to work, he would be allowed to avail compensatory holiday for such days of work. The Municipality is not an industry and it is constituted for providing better services to the public and also providing civic amenities to the public. The respondent therein denied the very crucial facts that the workmen worked on Sundays and Public Holidays. The Labour Court assume the role of executing court in the matters filed under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, for which there should be pre-existing right of settlement or decision in favour of the workmen, which is a condition precedent. In the instant case, there is no pre-existing right in favour of the workmen. The petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. On behalf of the workmen, they examined WW-1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-4. On behalf of the respondent, MW-1 was examined and marked Exs. M-1 to M-4. Ex.W-1 is the calculation sheet of the petitioner regarding claiming of over time wages. Ex.W-2 is the xerox copy of the circular passed by the respondent regarding weekly offs and festival holidays allowed to the workmen. Ex.W-3 is the xerox copy of the circular passed by the respondent regarding over time wages. Ex.W-4 is the xerox copy of the circular passed by the respondent regarding over time wages. Exs.M-1 to M-4 are the Attendance Registers for the relevant periods. 7. The Labour Court having regard to the pleadings of the petitioners and the respondent-municipality and based on the evidence adduced by both of them, framed the following issue : Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover the monetary benefits in terms of money to an extent of Rs. Rs.83,226/- Rs.86,325/- and Rs.87,125/- respectively from the respondent corporation ?, If not to what relief the petitioners are entitled ? 8. Considering the issue, the Labour Court allowed the above Miscellaneous Petitions and granted the relief sought for by the petitioners-workmen. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.1 Municipality filed the present writ petitions. 9. The case of the petitioner-municipality is that as the Labour has wrongly interpreted Exs.M-1 to M-4, which clearly show that the attendance of the workmen in a year, is humanly impossible. On this ground alone, the first respondent ought to have been rejected Exs.M-1 to M-4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the findings of the Labour Court that there is no dispute from the side of the Municipality about the particulars mentioned in the statement Ex.W1, is absolutely incorrect and without any basis for the reason that the Municipality has disputed the maintainability of the claim made by the petitioner under section 33-C (2). The workmen failed to show any written order that they worked on Sundays and Public Holidays without taking any compensatory holidays. The said claim has been disputed by the Municipality, as there is no such written order in favour of the workmen. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-workmen submitted that in similar situation the very same respondents have approached the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Labour Court had passed award in favour of the workmen and vis-à-vis the very same petitioners on the previous occasion had approached the Labour Court for the same relief, which was allowed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by which the Municipality filed writ petition questioning the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court, which writ petitions are disposed of, and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. The point that arises for consideration is : Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in these batch of writ petitions ? 12. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents- workmen are not the workmen within the definition of Section 2-G of the Minimum Wages Act and the Municipality is not an industry as contemplated 2-J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that they are regular employees of the municipality and they are availing Sundays and Public Holidays and they are entitled for the benefits of casual leaves, surrender leave and earned leaves and their salaries are on par with the Government employees. The Municipality never issued any orders for the over time duty to the workmen-petitioners at any point of time, as there is an alterative arrangement to relieve the staff after duty period of 8 hours. Whenever the services of the employees are taken on holidays alternative arrangement will be made to relieve the staff or compensatory holidays were provided to them. Therefore, the question of claiming over time does not arise. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the pleas taken by the petitioner- municipality does not fall for consideration in view of the fact that the dispute is covered in the judgment in RAJENDRANAGAR MUNICIPALITY, Rep. By its Commissioner V/s. B.V. PERRAJU AND ORS., Workmen of Rajendranagar Municipality & Anr[1]. 14. In that view of the matter, as per the award passed by the Labour Court-I, the Labour Court-I discussed the evidence of WW-1, MW-1 and Exs.W-1 to W-4 and Exs.M-1 to M-4. Considering the oral evidence of workmen and the oral evidence of MW-1, including the decision referred to supra-1, the Labour Court-I arrived at a conclusion. That the respondents-workmen are entitled for the relief sought for in the above Miscellaneous Petitions. In that view of the matter, since the Labour Court-I has considered the facts and law involved in these writ petitions and directed that the respondents- workmen are entitled for the monetary benefits of Rs.83,226/- Rs.86,325/- and Rs.87,125/- respectively. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in these writ petitions. 15. The writ petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH. 29-04-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP.NOs. 12215, 12216 & 12218 OF 2002 Circulation No. Date:29-04-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43 [1] ) 1995 (2) ALT-320