Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 149 (PNJ)

Karamjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2003-01-28

HEMANT GUPTA, S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S. S. Nijjar, J. 1. Notice of motion. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that this Court should issue a direction to the respondents to extend to the petitioners benefits in terms of law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors.1 Civii Appeal No.8434 of 1997, decided on 15.3.2000 (Annexure P/3 ). 3. While disposing of a number of petitions, the Hon ble Supreme Court issued various directions and modified the order of the High Court. Amongst other directions passed by the Hon ble Apex Court, reference to the following two directions would be relevant which read as under;- 1. That the employees, workman petitioners before the Supreme Court would be entitled to be given monetary benefit for working on Saturday by granting them extra wages for each of the Saturday of which they have shown to be discharged their duties.2. Secondly, the petitioner should invoke proper proceedings under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , for the purposes of proper computation in respect of the monetary benefit arising therefrom. 4. The judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court has given finality to the dispute between the parties. . 5. The respondents are expected to obey and follow the law laid down by the highest Court of the land and grant benefits to its employees, who were similarly situated in accordance with law. It will not be appropriate for the respondents to compel its employees to seek redressal of their grievances through process of the Court. In this regard, detailed directions were issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satbir Singh and Anr. V/s. The State of Haryana and Ors. Civil Writ Petition No.4382 of 2002, decided on 21.3.2002. We do hope that the respondents would at its own at least now and upon consideration of the cases of the petitioners pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as expeditiously as possible. 6. V/s. The State of Haryana and Ors. Civil Writ Petition No.4382 of 2002, decided on 21.3.2002. We do hope that the respondents would at its own at least now and upon consideration of the cases of the petitioners pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as expeditiously as possible. 6. In any case, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as their right to receive monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest court of the land. If the petitioners have performed their duties on Saturdays and Sundays then in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, their claim can hardly be refuted. In other words, it appear to us that right of the petitioners stands settled and it is only consequential benefits in terms of money that are being denied by the respondents to the petitioners. Appropriate remedy in terms of the above judgment is under the Industrial Disputes Act, but we do hope that respondent would not compel the petitioners to take recourse to such procedural law. 7. This petition is accordingly, disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- Hemant Gupta, J.