Dismissed

Municipal Committee, Bhatinda v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2014CWP/12216/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a Labour Court order awarding overtime wages to Municipal Committee workmen for Saturday duty, the High Court found no scope to interfere. The Court affirmed the Labour Court's factual finding that the workmen were distinct from those on holiday and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no interference in the Labour Court's order.

Municipal Committee, Bhatinda Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 12216 of 1993

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 12216 of 1993 Date of decision: 21.04.2014

¶5

Municipal Committee, Bathinda

¶6

...Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶13

Challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 15.10.1991 whereby, the respondents-workmen's application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') was allowed and they were held entitled for the amount on account of working on Saturdays during their tenure of service.

¶14

The writ petition was ordered to be heard alongwith CWP No. 576 of 1993. Office has appended the judgment dated 18.12.2013. However, the said case pertains to the rights of parties under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and is not relevant. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being decided on merits.

¶15

A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the claim of the workmen, who were 21 in number, was on the basis that they were entitled for the wages in lieu of working on Saturdays during their tenure of

¶16

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.29 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No. 12216 of 1993

¶18

¶19

service while working as Tubewell Operators. The Labour Court placed reliance upon the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to hold that as per the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act, there was a pre existing right between the parties for claiming overtime and it had not been disputed by the petitioner-Municipal Committee that Class III and Class IV persons were not working on Saturdays and were enjoying holidays. Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act reads thus:-

¶20

“14. Overtime.- (1) Where an employee, whose minimum rate of wages is fixed under this Act by the hour, by the day or by such a longer wage-period as may be prescribed, works on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day, the employer shall pay him for every hour or for part of an hour so worked in excess at the overtime rate fixed under this Act or under any law of the appropriate Government for the time being in force, whichever is higher.”

¶21

That the Labour Court has noticed that the workmen's representative Khem Chand has stated that they had been working since the year 1987 on Saturdays also and were entitled to wages on table rates so far as Saturdays were concerned and also took into consideration the statement of Ashok Kumar, Clerk of the petitioner-council.

¶22

In the reply filed by the workmen, it has been submitted that the workmen had already received amount and the award has already been implemented.

¶23

Section 33-C(2) of the Act provides that where the workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court would have

¶24

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.29 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No. 12216 of 1993

¶26

¶27

jurisdiction.

¶28

In the present case, as noticed, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court to hold that the respondents-workmen were entitled for the said benefit as the workmen have worked on Saturdays whereas similarly situated persons in the said establishment had not worked and have enjoyed holidays.

¶29

In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the Labour Court and the present petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

21.04.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE

¶31

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.29 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Municipal Committee, Bhatinda v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Committee, Bhatinda v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetu Chouhan &Anr Vs State of Punjab &Ors

Jamila and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Priya and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurdial Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sudesh Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sub Inspector Harjoginder Singh NO.61/BTA Vs State of Punjab and Ors.