- (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the order dated 09.02.2005 (Annexure P2) whereby the application of the private respondents No.2 to 4, filed under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') has been allowed and they were held entitled to financial benefits on account of working on Saturdays, for the 3 years, immediately preceding the date of filing of the application, i.e., 20.08.2002 till 25.12.2001.
(2.) PERUSAL of the award passed by the Labour Court would go on to show that the said respondents filed application alleging that they were electric Pump Drivers and had worked on each and every Saturday which was a holiday and they were entitled for wages on overtime basis. Claim was, thus, lodged w.e.f. March, 1997. It has been further pleaded that in case of Rakesh Kumar, applicant No.1, he is entitled from the year 1996.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by the petitioner -Corporation, plea taken was that there existed no vesting right to file claim petition and the weekly rest had been allowed to the workmen vide order dated 10.12.2001 and they already received wages for working on Saturdays. The applicants had joined service on 12.11.1999 and it was a fake claim and the duty of Saturdays on which they worked, has not been specified. The Labour Court was dealing with various applications which further had various applicants and vide consolidated order dated 09.02.2005, the applications were allowed. A perusal of the order would go on to show that the applicants Gurjit Singh, Rakesh Kumar, respondents No.4 and 2, had appeared as AW1 and AW2 respectively. The chart regarding the calculations of respondent No.3, Tarlochan Singh was furnished into evidence as Exhibit R3 by the authorized representative. On the other hand, the petitioner -Management had examined Rakesh Kumar, Clerk and closed its evidence. While deciding the entitlement of the workmen regarding the amount claimed under issue No.1, the calculations prepared by the Corporation were noticed and it was held that they would be entitled to the amount mentioned if they succeed in the application and it was also noticed that the applicant had not stated the Saturdays they had worked. Relevant findings read as under: "18. In Application Nos.441/02 and 442/02, the applicants have not stated the amount to which they are entitled. However, in Application No.411/02, the respondent has placed on the file Ex.R/1 showing the amount to which the applicant is entitled i.e. Rs. 20311/ -. 19. In application No.442/02, the respondent has placed on the file Ex.R/2, R/3 and R/1 respectively qua applicants No.1 to 3 regarding the calculations of the amount to which they are entitled to, detail of which is as under: - 1. Rakesh Kumar RS.36495/ - 2. Tarlochan Singh Rs.36495/ - 3. Gurjit Singh Rs.19922/ - 20. In view of the above discussion, the applicants would be entitled to the amount described above if they succeed in this application. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the applicants and against the respondent.";