Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by the Management of Madura Coats Limited against the judgment or the learned single judge rendered in O. P. No. 2600 of 1978-H. 2. Between the appellant-Management and the Union of workmen, there was a settlement evidenced by Ext. P2 dated 26th September, 1975 in regard to the revision of pay and other emoluments. It is provided in the settlement that it shall have retrospective effect from 1st January, 1975 except in regard to some specified matters. Though the benefit of enhanced revised pay etc. was made available by the appellant to its workmen, the Management withheld payment of emoluments in respect of 38 Sundays that fell between 1-1-1975 and 26-9-1975, on the basis of the enhanced salaries and dearness allowance on the ground that Clause. (a) of Para.25 of the settlement makes specific provision to the effect that the workmen are not entitled to holiday pay on the basis of the enhanced salaries and dearness allowance. Respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal made an application to the Labour Court at Calicut under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the monetary benefits in this behalf, and for consequential directions for payment. The Labour Court allowed the petition and directed the appellant to pay the withheld emoluments in respect of 38 Sundays at the enhanced rates. The Management then challenged the decision of the Labour Court in O.P. No. 2600 of 1978. The learned single judge having dismissed the said original petition, the Management has come up with this appeal. 3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Clause.(a) of para 25 of the settlement is attracted to the facts of the present case in respect of the emoluments payable for 38 Sundays which, according to the appellant, are holidays that fall between 1-1-1975 and 26-9-1975. Clause.(a) of para 25 which calls for interpretation in this case reads as follows: "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 11-1975 to the date of the Agreement." It is therefore, clear that this Clause.will come into operation so far as holiday pay is concerned only if the Management was paying holiday pay prior to the coming into force of Ext. P2. P2. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the workmen are not required to work on Sundays, Sundays having been declared as holidays. That being the position, it was submitted, that the emoluments that the workmen received for those Sundays which are holidays, is holiday pay contemplated by Clause.(a) of para 25 of the settlement. For the Management to take advantage of Clause.(a) of Para.25 in this behalf it has to establish that it was paying holiday pay to its workmen prior to Ext. P2 in respect of Sundays. When we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show us material justifying an inference that holiday pay was being paid to the workmen before Ext. P2 came into operation, the learned counsel for the appellant had to concede that there is no material showing that holiday pay was payable to the workmen in respect of Sundays which are declared as holidays. If that is the position, the question of invoking of Clause.(a) of para 25 of the settlement does not arise. It is not possible to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it should be deemed that the workmen were paid holiday pay. As Sundays have been declared as holidays and as salaries are paid for the entire month, the payment of salaries for the month must be deemed to include within it, the salary paid to the workman in respect of Sundays on which days they didn't work which according to him. must be regarded as holiday pay. It is not disputed that salary was being paid to the workmen on the basis of the earlier settlements on monthly basis. It is also not disputed that the number of hours of work which can be extracted from the workmen for a week cannot exceed 48 hours. S.52 of the Factories Act prescribes weekly holidays. It provides that no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory on the first day of the week unless he has or will have a holiday for a whole day on one of the three days immediately before or after the said day. It is therefore clear that the Management is required to provide a weekly holiday to its workmen in accordance with the provisions of S.52 of the Factories Act. It is therefore clear that the Management is required to provide a weekly holiday to its workmen in accordance with the provisions of S.52 of the Factories Act. It is in view of this statutory mandate that the appellant has provided Sundays as holidays. What is paid by way of salary by the Management is for the month. It is a statutory requirement that an adult worker should not be required to work for more than 48 hours in a week. The further statutory requirement is that the workmen should have at least one day as holiday, either Sunday or any other day, as per S.52 of the Factories Act That being the position, when the salary is paid in this context by the month, it is not possible to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that it includes salary paid by way of holiday pay in respect of these Sundays which are declared as holidays. The monthly salary is on the basis that workmen shall not be compelled to work for more than 48 hours in a week and that he shall have one day as holiday in a week as required under S.52 of the Factories Act. Hence it is not possible to take out of the monthly salary the salary for the Sundays and treat the same as salary paid by way of holiday salary. 4. Clause.(a) of para 2 of the settlement reads as follows: "2. (a) With effect from 1-1-1975. the basic salaries of the staff who have been confirmed as such prior to 1-1-1975 will be increased in such a manner as to give them not less than 20% increase on the gross salaries (consisting of basic salary and D.A. only) drawn by them on 31-12-1984." This provision entitles the workmen to the benefit of enhanced salary with effect from 1-1-1975. It provides that the rate of increase shall not be less than 20 per cent on the gross salaries consisting of basic salary and D. A. It is not disputed that prior to 1-1-1975 the workmen were receiving basic salary and dearness allowance and that they were not being paid any additional amount by way of holiday pay in respect of Sundays on which they were working. That being the position, by the operation of Clause.(a) of para 2 of the settlement, the Management is under an obligation to revise and grant the benefit of revision of the basic salary and D. A. taking into account 20 per cent of the pay and D. A. that the workmen were receiving prior to 31-12-1984. If the emoluments are taken that way, the question of deeming any amount paid by way of holiday pay does not arise. Looked at from any angle, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the Management is not entitled to deduct from the revised pay and D.A. to which the workmen have become entitled to on the basis of Ext. P2 any amount treating it as amount paid for Sundays as holiday pay on which days the workmen were not required to work having regard to the statutory requirements of S.52 of the Factories Act In view of our aforesaid finding, we do not consider it necessary to examine the correctness or otherwise of the finding recorded by the learned single judge as to whether Sunday should be regarded as a holiday or that it should be regarded as a rest day and not a holiday. We are inclined to take the view that the parties to Ext. P2 had in their mind, when they used the expression holiday pay in Clause.(a) of para 25 of the settlement the provisions of Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 which provides that every employee shall be allowed in each calender year a holiday of one whole day on the 26th January, the 15th August and the 1st May, and four other holidays each of one whole day for such festivals as the Inspector may, in consultation with the employer and the employees, specify in respect of any Industrial establishment. S.5 of the said Act provides that notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, every 7 employee shall be paid wages for each of the holidays allowed to him under S.3 of the said Act. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the workmen that the holiday pay contemplated by Clause. (a) of para 25 of the settlement, Ext. P2. is the wages payable under S.5 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act. 1958. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the workmen that the holiday pay contemplated by Clause. (a) of para 25 of the settlement, Ext. P2. is the wages payable under S.5 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act. 1958. We agree with the view taken by the Labour Court in this behalf. That being the position, we see no good ground to interfere with the decision of the learned single judge. 5. Before concluding, it is necessary to observe that it is not disputed that wherever we have used the term 'workmen', it refers to staff members mentioned in Ext. P2 settlement, which for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act are workmen. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.