JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner herein is working as Peon in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on regular basis. Prior to his appointment, as such, he was engaged as Chowkidar on 13.10.1982 for watch and ward of the food grains of the department in its Go-down at Ghatti in District Solan, H.P., vide order dated 13.10.1982. The said order was partially modified vide order dated 9.9.1996, Annexure P-1. The typed copy of appointment letter is at page 21-A of the writ petition. In terms of his engagement on daily wage basis, he was required to remain on duty and watch and ward of the go-down day and night. He was called upon to report for joining duties in case the terms and conditions on which appointed were acceptable to him. He reported for duties and continued to work as Chowkidar on daily wage basis till 31.3.1999. Thereafter, his services were regularized and presently he is working as Peon on regular basis. 2. The complaint is that during his engagement as Chowkidar on daily wage basis, he was not allowed to avail the holidays such as Sundays, second Saturday, local, national, gazetted as well as festival holidays. He, therefore, has worked out the holidays which should have been allowed to be availed by him, the kind of holidays hereinabove during each and every calender year as per detail given in Annexure P-2. The respondents, however, did not accede to his claim and rejected the same. Consequently, he filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for payment of wages on account of he worked on sundays, second saturdays and gazetted holidays etc. Learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla has, however, dismissed the application vide order, Annexure P-6, of course, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances, if any. He, therefore, has filed the present petition with a prayer to quash the order, Annexure P-6 and for a direction to the respondents to pay the amount he sought on account of he having worked during the holidays. 3. The response of the respondent-State is that being a daily waged Chowkidar, he was entitled for one holiday i.e. Sunday in a week on completion of six working days. 3. The response of the respondent-State is that being a daily waged Chowkidar, he was entitled for one holiday i.e. Sunday in a week on completion of six working days. Besides, the national holiday falling on 15th August, 26th January and 2nd October during each and every calender year were also being given to him. Also that, he has been paid due and admissible wages during his services on daily wage basis with the respondents. The application he preferred in the Labour Court below is, therefore, stated to be rightly dismissed. 4. On hearing Mr. Vinay Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General and going through the record, it would not be improper to conclude that the petitioner, a daily wager was not entitled to avail the holidays falling on second saturday, Gazetted holidays or local holidays being not admissible to the staff deployed on daily wage basis. Otherwise also, he has not brought on record any instructions/rules which permits a daily wager to avail such holidays. On the other hand, detail (at page 25 of the writ petition) of working days and the wages paid to him he himself annexed to the writ petition goes to show that throughout he continued to receive the wages for full months. There is nothing on record to suggest that he has not been allowed to avail one holiday on the completion of every six working days. The days he worked out as per Annexure P-2, when he worked during Sundays, second Saturdays, Gazetted holidays or local holidays, however, not paid his wages is otherwise also not substantiated from any contemporaneous record. On the other hand, in a calender year, he was only entitled to claim the wages for one holiday on completion of every six working days in a calender month. He, however, has failed to prove that such holiday on completion of every six working days was not allowed to be availed by him. On the other hand, as per response of the respondents, he was not supposed to be on duty during 24 hours, however, as and when necessary or called upon to do so. 5. Therefore, learned Labour Court has rightly rejected his claim while dismissing the application vide order, Annexure P-6. On the other hand, as per response of the respondents, he was not supposed to be on duty during 24 hours, however, as and when necessary or called upon to do so. 5. Therefore, learned Labour Court has rightly rejected his claim while dismissing the application vide order, Annexure P-6. True it is that in the judgment of this Court, Annexure P-5 vide award under challenge therein the employer was directed to pay wages to the petitioner-workman for Sundays, however, the facts of that case were identical or not, no opinion on the basis of the judgment and in the absence of award which was under challenge in that writ petition can be formed. Otherwise also, in the case in hand, as noticed supra, the petitioner has received wages for full month including Sundays. Above all, the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed or not, is a mixed question of law and facts, which cannot be determined in exercise of writ jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.