SHEO MURAT Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising from a representative suit for a declaration that the order dated March 15, 1965 (Ex. A-3) depriving the employees of the Agriculture and Dairy farms of the Government Agricultural College, Kanpur of the benefit of a weekly rest day with effect from June 6, 1965 was ultra vires, illegal and invalid and that the plaintiff and the other employees like him of the said two farms of the said College were entitled to a day of rest every week. Besides the above declaration the plaintiff had also claimed damages amounting to Rs. 96/- for 48 days of weekly rest on which the plaintiff had worked at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per day as also pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per day for the day of rest every week until such time as the order was not rescinded.

(2.) The plaintiff was employed as a delivery man in the dairy farm of the Government Agricultural College at Kanpur. The suit was brought by him in a representative capacity on behalf of all such employees of the said College as belonged to the plaintiffs category in the Agriculture and Dairy farms. The plaintiff and certain other employees of his category were confirmed in their service by an order dated 2nd June, 1952. They were enjoying a day of rest every week from 1962 but the said benefit was withdrawn with effect from June 6, 1965 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, hence the suit. These facts were not disputed.

(3.) The plaintiff contended that the privilege of a day of rest every week was a condition of service. The Government withdrew the said benefit suddenly end without any explanation or prior notice. On representation to the Labour Inspector, Kanpur, the plaintiff was informed that the practice of allowing the plaintiff and other employees of his category a day of rest every week was withdrawn in pursuance of a Government notification dated Nov. 10. 1964 under S. 13 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the Act was a measure enacted for the benefit of the employees and did not authorise the Government to withdraw a privilege which was being enjoyed by them.