MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE GIDDERBAHA Vs. LABOUR COURT BHATINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a bunch of 24 cases. There are 23 Civil Writ Petitions. Civil Writ Petition No. 11611 of 1989 has been filed by the Workers' Union. The 22 cases viz. C. W. P. Nos. 12002-12022 and 9374 of 1992 have been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) wherein the claim of the workmen for the award of wages on account of being called upon to work on holidays has been upheld. Such a challenge having been negatived in a case by the learned single Judge, the Municipal Committee, Gidderbaha has filed L. P. A. No. 768 of 1992. The facts may be briefly noticed.

(2.) ON August 27, 1969, the Punjab Government had made a reference to the, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab. One of the disputes which had been referred to the Tribunal was -

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant as well as the petitioner-Corporation, the arguments have been addressed by Mr. G. K. Chatrath, Senior Advocate and Mr. M. M. Kumar, Advocate. Learned counsel have submitted that in proceedings under Section 33-C (2), only a preexisting right can be enforced. The Court has only to compute the wages found due and order payment. However, the Court cannot determine the entitlement of the employees. Learned counsel have urged that in these cases, the Court has gone into the issue of determining the entitlement of the employees which was beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 33-C (2 ). Secondly, it has been urged that the claim made by the respondent-workmen was barred by limitation. In L. P. A. No. 768 of 1992, the claim relating to the period from the year 1984 to 1989 was raised in 1990. In the 22 Civil Writ Petitions, the claim for the period from the year 1982 to 1986 was made in the year 1986. Relying on the provisions of Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it has been urged by the counsel that the workmen were debarred from making the claim in view of the fact that the period of limitation had already expired. Still further, it has been urged that the order passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, does not consider the fact that the employer had passed an order on August 12, 1986 by which it was declared that there would be a six days week. Thus, the employees were no longer entitled to claim wages for working on Saturdays. Still further, learned counsel have urged that in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Hari Chand v. The State of Punjab and others, 1997-3117 P. L. R. 451, the employees wording in the Octroi Sections are not entitled to claim extra wages merely on the ground that those working in the Administrative Section of the Corporation were not required to attend to any duties on Saturdays.