Judgment :- 1. Ext. P1 order of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in C. P. No. 486 of 1976 under S.33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is challenged by the petitioner-management insofar as the court construed Clause.25 of Ext. P2 agreement dated 26-9-1975 entered into between the company and the Union representing the workmen This agreement came into operation with effect from 1-1-1975 subject to what is stated therein. Clause.25 relates to eligibility for arrears and payment of arrears. It reads: "25. Eligibility for arrears and payment of arrears: (a) The retrospective effect given to the increases in basic salaries and dearness allowance will not be taken into account for payment of overtime, leave or holiday pay or lay-off compensation for the period from 1-1-1975 to the date of the agreement. (b) The confirmed staff who have been in the service of the Company from 1-1-1975 shall qualify for arrears arising from the retrospective increase of the basic salaries and dearness allowance for the period they worked in the service of the Company from 1-1-1975. (C) 2. The employees in question are confirmed staff on monthly wages. Admittedly they worked in the company during the period from 1-1 - 1975 to 26-9-1975. Therefore they claim that they are entitled to the benefit of the increase allowed in the basic salaries and dearness allowance as per the agreement even for Sundays falling within the period. The management recognised that the employees worked during the period from 1-1-1975 to 26-9-1975. But having not worked on Sundays they were not entitled to the increase in respect of those days. 3. The Court found that Sunday is not a national or festival holiday and therefore, having worked during the period from 1-1-1975 to 26-9-1975, the employees were entitled to be paid their monthly wages for the entire period inclusive of the intervening Sundays. 4. It is admitted that in respect of the confirmed staff like the petitioners the increased basic salary and dearness allowance were payable under Ext. P2 agreement with effect from 1-1-1975. It is also admitted that the petitioners worked during the period commencing on 1-1-1975. Although the calendar week is composed of 7 days, the working week is only of 6 days. Sunday is not a holiday in the sense that it is declared as a national or festival holiday. It is a day of rest. It is also admitted that the petitioners worked during the period commencing on 1-1-1975. Although the calendar week is composed of 7 days, the working week is only of 6 days. Sunday is not a holiday in the sense that it is declared as a national or festival holiday. It is a day of rest. That means an employee who has worked on 6 days a week is deemed to have worked the whole week round just as he has worked the whole day round if he has worked 8 hours during the 24 hours of the day, subject, of course, to statute or special terms of contract. This is the claim of the employees. They worked the weeks round during the period from 1-1-1975 till the date of agreement. Consequently, notwithstanding the intervening Sundays, they are entitled to the increase in the basic salaries and dearness allowance for the entire period from 1-1-1975 to 26-9-1975. This is how the Labour Court understood the agreement. This is how I too understand the agreement. The challenge against Ext. P1 thus fails. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.