MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JALLAIABAD THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,BATHINDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Committee, Jailalabad is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court by which respondents Nos. 2 to 33 have been held entitled to certain wages in pursuance to the provisions of the Punjab Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays and Casual and Sick Leave) Act, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

(2.) Mr. S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Municipal Committee is not a factory and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to its employees. Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 33 has conceded at the outset that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the parties. He, however, submits that the respondents are employees of the local authority. By referring to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and the scheme thereto, he submits that the respondents are entitled to the. same relief as has been granted to them by the impugned award by virtue of the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(3.) It is well settled that it is the case pleaded which has to be decided by a court of law. No plea with regard to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act was ever raised before the authority. Even before the Court, no written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 33. If a written statement had been filed and a plea regarding the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act had been raised, it would have been possible for the petitioner to argue the case effectively. Since no plea was raised either before the Labour Court or even before this Court, by filing a written statement, it will be unfair to the respondents if it is allowed to be raised at the stage of arguments. Even otherwise, a perusal of sections 13 and 14 shows that before claiming relief under this Act, certain facts in respect of the number of hours which constitute normally a working day; provision for a day of rest and payment for work on a day of rest, are to be proved. No order of the appropriate Govt, in respect of matters covered under Sec. 31 has been produced before me. In this case, even if the plea were to be considered, the factual data is not available. The learned counsel for the respondents having conceded that the provisions of ti. Act are not attracted in the present case, the award at Annexure P-3 given by the Labour Court, Bhatinda cannot be sustained. It is consequently quashed.The Motion Bench having stayed the operation of the order, no consequential directions are necessary.