1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2370/2011 (MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ACHALPUR VERSUS VINAYAK Y. GANORKAR & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amravati on 09.12.2010 partly allowing an application filed by the respondents under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming overtime wages on the ground that the petitioner had extracted work from the respondents on 2nd and 4th Saturdays and gazetted holidays. The Labour Court, by the impugned order dated 09.12.2010, held that the respondents were not entitled to overtime wages for the work done by them on 2nd and 4th Saturdays but, were entitled to overtime wages for the work done on gazetted holidays. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Labour Court was not justified in granting wages to the respondents for working on gazetted holidays as the respondents were given some other holidays in lieu of extracting work from them on gazetted holidays. It is also the 2 case of the petitioner that the respondents have not proved that they have worked on gazetted holidays. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner do not have any basis. The petitioner has not stated in the written statement that the respondents were given holidays on some other days for extracting work from them on gazetted holidays. The written statement is conspicuously silent in this regard. Moreover, the petitioner has not disputed that the respondents had worked on gazetted holidays. In the absence of any denial in that regard, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the submission that the respondents had not actually worked on gazetted holidays. Moreover, the amount which is payable to each of the respondents is meager and the respondents cannot be deprived of the wages if they have worked on gazetted holidays. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE