TIRUPATHI MUNICIPALITY TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT ANANTAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since substantially identical questions of law and that of facts do arise in each of these writ petitions and since the petitioner in each of these writ petition is a Municipality - common petitioner all these writ petitions were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Second respondent in each of these writ petitions claims to be a workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'the Act'. The Second respondents in all these writ petitions claimed that they worked in Class IV Services of the Petitioner Municipality for a certain specific periods. It is their case that they were made to work over-time including holidays and they were not permitted to avail compensatory holidays. In this factual background the second respondents filed M.P.s. before the Industrial Court namely Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming certain sums of money towards over-time wages payable to them by the petitioner-Management under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Management contesting the claim of the second respondent in their statement of objections filed in each of these claims contented that Tirupathi Municipality is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act; the second respondents in each of the writ petitions are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and the terms and service conditions of the second respondents are exclusively governed by the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, Rules Regulations and Bye-laws made thereunder.

(3.) During the course of enquiry before the Industrial Court on behalf of the workmen P.Venkata Reddy who is the second respondent in W.P.No. 15827/ 94 examined as W.W.I and four documents were marked on behalf of the workmen as Exs. W-1 to W-4. On behalf of the Management one Sesha Reddy, the Municipal Engineer of the petitioner Municipality was examined as M. W. 1. The learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the petitioner Municipality is an 'Industry' and the second respondents in each of these writ petitions are workmen. The learned Presiding Officer has also found that the workmen worked on Sundays and other Public holidays and they were not paid over-time wages as required under the provisions of the Factories Act and the Payment of Wages Act. In that view of the matter the Industrial Court passed separate orders in each of the claims applications made by the second respondent directing the petitioner Municipality to calculate the over-time wages payable to the workmen for the work done by them on Sundays and Public Holidays without availing compensatory holidays and after such calculation to pay the sums of monies to the concerned workmen on or before 31-5-1994. The Industrial Court further directed that if the direction is not complied with by. the petitioner-Municipality within the stipulated time then the Municipality is further directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the sum of money payable to the workmen. Being aggrieved by these orders made by the Industrial Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the present writ petitions are filed in this Court by the petitioner-Tirupathi Municipality.