JUDGMENT Sanjay Vashisth, J. Introduction This judgment will decide the fate of CWP No. 06535 of 2017 and other 510 writ petitions, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. For their case/writ petition numbers and case-titles, see Annexure 'A' of the judgment. Broad Issue Involved 2. The question that arises for adjudication in these 511 Civil Writ Petitions is - "As to whether the employees of different departments/offices of the State of Punjab are entitled to be paid extra wages or not, for the duty performed by them on Saturday, which otherwise is a non-working day being holiday, as there is a concept of working of five days in a week in the Public Offices in the State of Punjab". 3. The employees, who have worked on Saturdays/holiday period, had claimed for 'extra wages', before the Industrial Tribunal(s), as a matter of right, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act'). As a result of the adjudication of such applications, which were filed by the employees, and passing of orders by the respective Industrial Tribunals, these writ petitions have come up for hearing and decision thereon before this Court. Details of which have been mentioned in subsequent part of this judgment. 4. In the cases, where the Industrial Tribunals have accepted the plea/claim of the employees, such respective departments/offices have come up before this Court by way of filing writ petitions (447 writ petitions out of total 511), while in the other set of cases, it is the employees, who have approached this Court after declining of their respective claims by the Industrial Tribunals (62 writ petitions out of total 511). There is another set of 02 writ petitions, where the employees of Nagar Council, Kapurthala and Municipal Council, Kotkapura, have filed writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002, respectively, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, by directing the official respondents therein to pay the petitioners extra wages, in lieu of duty performed by them on Saturdays. Needless to mention that in these two cases, the employees have not approached the Industrial Tribunals by moving applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Provision of Section 33c of The Id Act 5. Needless to mention that in these two cases, the employees have not approached the Industrial Tribunals by moving applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Provision of Section 33c of The Id Act 5. Since, the whole controversy involved in all the writ petitions in hand, revolves around Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, it is imperative for this Court to notice at the outset, bare provisions of Section 33C of the ID Act as a whole, and its sub-section (2) in specific. For ready reference, Section 33C of the ID Act, in its totality is reproduced here-below: "33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.- (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of 6 [Chapter VA or Chapter VB], the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer: Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; within a period not exceeding three months: Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit. (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the commissioner and other circumstances of the case. (4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1). (5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen. Explanation.-- In this section "Labour Court" includes any court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State." 6. Section 33C did not exist when the ID Act was originally enacted in 1947. It was for the first time incorporated by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 36 of 1956, w.e.f. 10.03.1957. Thereafter, Section 33C has been substituted to its present amended form by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964, w.e.f. 15.12.1964. The object of this provision of law is to provide a speedy remedy to employees for the realisation of their claims for money or benefits. 7. Thereafter, Section 33C has been substituted to its present amended form by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964, w.e.f. 15.12.1964. The object of this provision of law is to provide a speedy remedy to employees for the realisation of their claims for money or benefits. 7. Bare reading of its heading, i.e. 'Recovery of money due from an employer', makes it clear that this provision of law has been introduced for the benefit of the employees/workman, for recovery of money due from an employer, without further indulging into the rigmaroles i.e. a lengthy and complicated procedure, for getting a settlement or an award executed by invoking the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the ID Act provides that money due from an employer in pursuance of a settlement reached between the parties or an award or compensation for lay-off and retrenchment may be recovered by the concerned workman. If any money is due to a workman in respect of any of the aforesaid claims, the workman is given the right to make an application to the appropriate Government for recovery of the money due to him. The appropriate Government, if it is satisfied that any money is so due, shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Thus, before Section 33C(1) can take effect, the money must be due. In other words, it must have become payable, because no money can be said as due amount, once it is yet to be ascertained. Therefore, subsection (1) of Section 33C relates to a stage in the proceedings where the amount due to the employee or workman has already been quantified and determined. 9. Two provisos, which have been appended to sub-section (1), prescribe the limitation for making the application for recovery of money due, within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. Provision also empowers the appropriate Government to condone the delay of any period, in filing the application, if sufficient cause is shown for it. The application for recovery of the due money may be filed by the workman himself or his authorized agent, and where the concerned workman dies, his assignee or heirs are entitled to prefer the application. 10. Provision also empowers the appropriate Government to condone the delay of any period, in filing the application, if sufficient cause is shown for it. The application for recovery of the due money may be filed by the workman himself or his authorized agent, and where the concerned workman dies, his assignee or heirs are entitled to prefer the application. 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 33C, however, refers to a stage anterior to that provided for in sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the ID Act. Under sub-section (2), if a workman is entitled to any money or any benefit, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, i.e. a monetary or non-monetary benefit and if there is any dispute as to the money due or as to the amount at which the non-monetary benefit is to be computed, firstly that question would be decided by the Labour Court, designated by the appropriate Government. The Labour Court shall then decide the amount, subject to any rules that may be made under the ID Act. Thus, from bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the ID Act, it is crystal clear that it deals with the cases where a workman is entitled or having pre-existing right to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. Further, sub-section (2) of Section 33C does not indicate the mode in which the question as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which the benefit should be computed may be decided. Meaning thereby, position of a Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is that of an executing Court only, which cannot go beyond the award. 11. Sub-section (3) of Section 33C of the ID Act empowers the Labour Court to appoint a commissioner for the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, after taking such evidence as may be necessary. Thereafter, the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case. 12. 11. Sub-section (3) of Section 33C of the ID Act empowers the Labour Court to appoint a commissioner for the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, after taking such evidence as may be necessary. Thereafter, the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case. 12. As per sub-section (4) of Section 33C of the ID Act, after the decision of the Labour Court, the same is required to be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court can be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1). 13. Provision of sub-section (5) of Section 33C of the ID Act enables the workmen to file a single application for the recovery of the amount due, on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen, provided all the applicants/workmen should be employed under the same employer and are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money. Thus, in broader sense, the provisions of law contained under Section 33C of the ID Act appears to be only to initiate recovery proceedings qua a right, which might have been adjudicated in advance to the initiation of such process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. It deals with the recovery of money, and the proceedings under this section are in the nature of an execution. Under it, dispute between an employer and a workman cannot be determined. Interpretation of Section 33c(2) of The Id Act By Hon'ble Apex Court 14. The scope of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act has been well defined by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court about six decades back, in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan (Civil Appeal Nos. 823 to 826 of 1962, decided on 19.04.1963, reported as AIR 1964 SC 743 : (1964) 3 SCR 140 ). After the said decision, it is sinequa-non that aforesaid provision of law is framed to empower the employee to receive/recover the money for which he/she is otherwise entitled from the employer, who is in denial mode. Further it was made clear that such benefit should be capable of being computed in terms of money. 15. After the said decision, it is sinequa-non that aforesaid provision of law is framed to empower the employee to receive/recover the money for which he/she is otherwise entitled from the employer, who is in denial mode. Further it was made clear that such benefit should be capable of being computed in terms of money. 15. Again, Hon'ble the Supreme Court adjudged in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and another (Civil Appeal No. 7138 of 1994, decided on 20.10.1994, reported as (1995) 1 SCC 235 : Law Finder Doc Id # 23536), that in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim, rather it can only interpret the award or settlement, on which the claim is based. Further elaborated by saying that "Courts jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is like that of an executing Court". As per the settled proposition of law, without prior adjudication or recognition of the claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable for its adjudication under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 16. In the case of Union of India and another v. Kankuben (Dead) by LRs and others (Civil Appeal Nos. 10252-69 of 2003, decided on 20.03.2006, reported as (2006) 9 SCC 292 : 2006 AIR SC 1784 : Law Finder Doc Id # 120052), Hon'ble Apex Court observed that benefits sought to be enforced under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act must necessarily be pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right, failing which, the Court/Labour Court would not be having jurisdiction to exercise its powers by virtue of provision of law, i.e. Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 17. 17. The interpretation of the statutory provision of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court six decades back in P.S. Rajagopalan's case (supra), still holds the field and the same has been consistently followed and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself in subsequent pronouncements from time to time, as is evident from the recent judgment passed in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and another (Civil Appeal No. 813 of 2022, decided on 04.02.2002, reported as (2022) 5 SCC 629 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1940080). Thus, while considering and taking final decision in these 511 writ petitions, this Court is duty bound to examine the controversy and the question of law involved, by following the statement of law as guided number of times by the Hon'ble Apex Court through its interpretations in the last six decades, as discussed above. Broadly speaking, it needs to be checked whether the applications filed by the employees, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, contain the details along with its corroboratory evidence on record to conclude the pre-existing right of recovery of money from the employer, before the same being duly computed. Backdrop Under Which The Writ Petitions Came To Be Listed Before This Court 18. With the decision in civil writ petition, titled as "Municipal Corporation, Patiala through its Commissioner v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Patiala and another" (CWP No. 4088 of 2015, decided on 23.08.2017, reported as Law Finder Doc Id # 964964) as a lead case, 476 writ petitions were disposed of, after a tedious exercise carried out by the Single Bench of this Court (judgment passed by Rajiv Narain Raina, J.). If not the all, in majority of the cases, the judgment dated 23.08.2017, passed in CWP No. 4088 of 2015, was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), by way of Letters Patent Appeals, which were preferred by the affected employees/workmen. While setting aside the judgment passed by the Single Bench, the said appeals were disposed of by remanding all the cases/petitions, back to the Single Bench, for decision afresh, decided vide judgement dated 23.08.2017. While setting aside the judgment passed by the Single Bench, the said appeals were disposed of by remanding all the cases/petitions, back to the Single Bench, for decision afresh, decided vide judgement dated 23.08.2017. While remanding, Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench also made a request to the Single Bench to segregate the cases and then to decide them individually in terms of each employer, because it was of the view that the factors relevant for adjudicating the entitlement in the cases of various categories of employees, are different and even in some of the matters, their entitlement had attained finality of the order, passed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. One of the order, passed in the case of Gurmeet Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bahtinda and others (LPA No. 130 of 2018, decided on 06.12.2018), reads as under:- "Krishna Murari, C.J. (Oral) In this bunch of 22 LPAs, arising out of a common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the issue involved for adjudication was entitlement of the writ petitioners' with respect to wages for working on Saturdays, which otherwise has been declared to be a holiday in the State of Punjab. Admittedly, the appellants/writ petitioners' are employees of different local bodies, such as Punjab Mandi Board, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), different municipal councils/committees and also State of Punjab. Learned Single Judge clubbed all the petitions together and decided them by a common judgment, allowing the writ petitions filed by the employers, rejecting the claim of workmen/employees. It is contended before us that in some of the cases the entitlement for being paid wages for working on Saturdays attained finality inter se between the parties right up to the Apex Court and the matter had gone before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'the Act'), for computation of wages to be paid. Similarly, in some of the matters the judgement of this Court holding the employees entitled for payment of wages for working on Saturdays also attained finality and in those cases also the matter before the Labour Court, under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, was only in respect of computation of wages to be paid. There was no issue of entitlement in those cases as the same inter se between the parties had attained finality. There was no issue of entitlement in those cases as the same inter se between the parties had attained finality. It is contended on behalf of appellants that learned Single Judge failed to take note of this fact and, thus, the impugned judgment suffers from patent error of law apparent on the face of record. All the learned counsel for the appellants are in unison that the matter ought to have been considered and decided by the learned Single Judge individually without clubbing them together because the factors relevant for adjudicating the entitlement are different in case of different employers. Similarly, the matters where entitlement had attained finality the award made under Section 33-C(2) of the Act were liable to be considered on entirely different considerations. The clubbing of all the matters and disposal thereof by a common judgment has not only led to a situation of utter confusion but non consideration of relevant fats of specific case, as such, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. All the matters stand remitted back to the learned Single Judge with a request to segregate them and decide individually in terms of each employer. The parties to appear through counsel before the learned Single Judge on 17.12.2018. With the aforesaid observation and direction, all the appeals stand finally disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected matters. Sd/- (Krishna Murari) Chief Justice Sd/- (Arun Palli) Judge December 06, 2018" 19. This is how, these writ petitions, involving the claim of different employees/workmen, who are employees of different Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, Municipal Councils, Nagar Councils, as well as various other departments of the State of Punjab, are before this Court for decision. Appointment of Amicus Curiae 20. When the cases in hand and number of other writ petitions came to be listed on 04.03.2024, the following order was passed by this Court:- " The pivotal issue involved in the aforementioned petitions is, as to whether those persons, working in different capacities as field staff, in various State Government Departments, Boards, Corporations, Municipal Bodies etc., are entitled to wages for discharging/performing duties on Saturdays and holidays due to exigencies attached to their service(s), as is being paid to their counterparts who are working in offices/ministerial establishments and enjoy five days week? There are more than 600 petitions, in which aforementioned broad issue is involved. However, during course of hearing, it has been pointed out by some of the counsel that for just decision of these petitions, it would be appropriate to sub-categorize the petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in all the writ petitions are directed to supply within three days from today, following information (case number wise), for the purpose of segregating the same into different categories: Case No. Parties Name Filed by (Name of Workman or Name of Management) Designation of Workman (s) or Nature of duties performed by him/her. Act/ Rules/ Instructions, if any, governing service condition(s) of workman. Claim made in the writ petition. Judgement, if any, passed by this Court, other High Courts as well as by Hon'ble the Apex Court, in support of their claim, with relevant para Nos. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate (Enrollment No. P/314/1997), are appointed as Amicus Curiae with a request to assist this Court in the matter. However, same would be subject to their convenience. Registry is directed to bring to the notice of Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, about today's order and also supply complete copies of the paper books of CWP-16319-2018, CWP-4062- 2013, CWP-4088-2015, CWP-6204-2015, CWP-8332-2015, CWP-5654-2017, CWP-8236-2017, CWP-18083-2013 and CWP-20609-2022, at this stage. Accordingly, without clubbing these petitions (listed at different serial numbers of today's cause list) together, except otherwise already ordered on an earlier date, the same are adjourned to 18.03.2024. To be taken up at 03:30 p.m. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (Sanjay Vashisth) Judge March 04, 2024" 21. It is pertinent to mention here that there are several cases wherein either the employees/workmen have already retired or even in some of the cases unfortunately expired or their Legal Heirs/Legal Representatives are pursuing the litigation. Even, in many of the writ petitions/cases, the counsel who initially filed the writ petitions or appearing on behalf of the employees/workmen, were not causing appearance to assist the Court. Thus, in the wake of lack of proper assistance, this Court deemed it appropriate to appoint Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, as 'Amicus Curiae' in these writ petitions. Difficulty In Adjudication of The Writ Petitions Individually 22. Thus, in the wake of lack of proper assistance, this Court deemed it appropriate to appoint Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, as 'Amicus Curiae' in these writ petitions. Difficulty In Adjudication of The Writ Petitions Individually 22. As already noticed above, a directive in the form of request, has been issued by the Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench to decide all the writ petitions separately, yet the information given by the counsel before the LPA Bench seems to be incomplete because in many of the cases one single and common order has been passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, while deciding the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which were filed by different categories of workmen. Furthermore, there are several cases, wherein the employees/workmen, who are governed under different set of statutory rules, themselves approached the concerned Industrial Tribunal by filing a single/joint application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, without even disclosing therein complete details/service particulars of each and every applicant/workman, as well as statutory provisions governing their conditions of service. 23. Faced with the said difficulty, while hearing these cases on several dates, this Court passed the order dated 04.03.2024, reproduced above, for providing the information of each and every case, in precise and tabulated manner in the chart provided in the said order, so as to enable the Court to deal with and decide each case in an appropriate and effective manner. However, in their wisdom, even not in a single case, any of the counsel provided the information to the Court, as was asked in the order dated 04.03.2024. 24. Not only this, during the course of subsequent hearings, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate-Amicus Curiae, with all humility at his command, also informed the Court that several requests were made by him to respective counsel appearing in the cases, to supply him the factual details of cases, to enable him to assist the Court properly, but of no avail. 24. Not only this, during the course of subsequent hearings, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate-Amicus Curiae, with all humility at his command, also informed the Court that several requests were made by him to respective counsel appearing in the cases, to supply him the factual details of cases, to enable him to assist the Court properly, but of no avail. Which is why, during course of making his submissions, he showed his helplessness to assist the Court on facts of each and every case individually, and addressed his submissions only on legal issues by referring to the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) from time to time on the questions of law involved in the present set of writ petitions. 25. In this view of the matter, firstly it is not feasible to deal with the cases of each and every employee individually. Secondly, no purpose would be served, by deciding the writ petitions separately on individual basis, inasmuch as, claim raised by the employees; and the issues as well as the questions of law involved in all the writ petitions are common. Segregation of Writ Petitions Into 14 Blocks / Categories 26. By taking note of the afore-stated direction issued by the Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench, this Court has undertaken an exhaustive exercise, and all the 511 writ petitions have been segregated department wise and category-wise into 14 different blocks. The headings assigned to 14 blocks/categories are as under:- Block No. Category Total Writ Petitions Sr. Nos. Annexure No. 1. Fire Brigade 127 1 to 127 'B' 2. Octroi & Octroi + Fire Brigade 03 128 to 130 'C' 3. Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads), Punjab 82 131 to 212 'D' 4. Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab 12 213 to 224 'E' 5. Punjab Roadways 95 225 to 319 'F' 6. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) 09 320 to 328 'G' 7. Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government 89 329 to 417 'H' to 'N' 7(A). Cases of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar 02 329 & 330 'H' 7(B). Cases of Municipal Corporation, Patiala 51 331 to 381 'I' 7(C). Cases of Municipal Committee, Jalalabad 10 382 to 391 'J' 7(D). Cases of Nagar Council, Abohar 05 392 to 396 'K' 7(E). Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government 89 329 to 417 'H' to 'N' 7(A). Cases of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar 02 329 & 330 'H' 7(B). Cases of Municipal Corporation, Patiala 51 331 to 381 'I' 7(C). Cases of Municipal Committee, Jalalabad 10 382 to 391 'J' 7(D). Cases of Nagar Council, Abohar 05 392 to 396 'K' 7(E). Cases of Municipal Council, Sangrur 17 397 to 413 'L' 7(F). Cases of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana 02 414 & 415 'M' 7(G). Cases of Municipal Corporation, Rajpura 02 416 & 417 'N' 8. Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab 34 418 to 451 'O' 9. Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board 28 452 to 479 'P' 10. Health Department, Punjab 01 480 'Q' 11. Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab 02 481 & 482 'R' 12. Sainik Welfare, Punjab 01 483 'S' 13. Punjab Mandi Board 21 484 to 504 'T' 14. Irrigation Department, Punjab 07 505 to 511 'U' 27. While scrutinizing the pleadings and other material available on record of each and every writ petition, an exercise was undertaken to compile following details/particulars of each case individually in Annexure Nos. 'A' to 'U', which have been made part and parcel of this judgment:- 1. Sr. No. 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 3. Application No. under section 33C(2) of the ID Act 4. Date of impugned order 5. Name of the Industrial Tribunal 6. Name of the applicant/employee or LRs 7. Post held by the applicant/employee 8. Department to which he/she belong 9. Service particulars, if any, provided in the pleadings 10. Period for which claim of extra wages was made 11. Amount claimed in the application Backdrop of The Controversy 28. The State of Punjab introduced the policy of 'five days working in a week for its employees', w.e.f. 07.04.1980, and since then, they are enjoying the said benefit, having two days off in the weekend i.e. every Saturday and Sunday. However, grievance of the employees/workmen in these writ petitions, is that they were/are mainly posted in field area with only one weekly off, and denied the benefit of five days working in a week, contrary to other employees who used to work in the offices of the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, Municipal Councils, Nagar Councils and various other government departments. However, grievance of the employees/workmen in these writ petitions, is that they were/are mainly posted in field area with only one weekly off, and denied the benefit of five days working in a week, contrary to other employees who used to work in the offices of the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, Municipal Councils, Nagar Councils and various other government departments. Further, they are made to work without paying any extra wages as compensation or alternative weekly off for working on Saturdays. In this manner, the said employees/workmen felt heartburning and discrimination. It is also alleged that the departments/competent authorities have not promulgated any uniform rules/bye-laws for such employees/workmen regarding working on Saturday in a week. Advent of Raising The Claim of Extra Wages As Compensation In Lieu of Working On Saturdays And Earlier Rounds of Litigation 29. With the said grievance, at the first instance, some of the employees who were working as 'Octori Clerks' and 'Peons' in Municipal Committees, initially approached this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) by filing writ petitions, for seeking extra wages as compensation in lieu of working on 'Saturdays'. 30. After reference by a Division Bench, a 3 Judges Full Bench of this Court (K. Sreedharan, C.J., N.K. Sodhi and T.H.B. Chalapathi, JJ.), considered the question "as to whether the employees working on the octroi side in the Municipal Committees are entitled to National Festival and Gazetted holidays, Saturdays and Sundays off, Restricted holidays and lunch breaks etc. at par with the employees working on the office side or not", in a bunch of 58 writ petitions. And, answered the same in the case of Hari Chand v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 5476 of 1992, decided on 29.05.1997, reported as PLR (1997) 117 P&H 451 : (1998) 1 SLR 299 : Law Finder Doc Id # 19788), 31. In Hari Chand's case (supra), Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, had opined that the 'Clerks' and 'Peons' working in the offices, had not availed the benefit of compensatory leave/holidays in lieu of National holiday, Festival holiday and had also not availed the benefit of 'Cycle' and Uniform allowances, which were available to the Clerks and Peons working at the Octroi check-posts and barriers. Therefore, no question arises of any discrimination inter se these two categories of employees, though belonging to the same institution, having one common seniority with common pay scales and common cadre. Therefore, no question arises of any discrimination inter se these two categories of employees, though belonging to the same institution, having one common seniority with common pay scales and common cadre. This is how, the claims of the writ petitioners before the High Court were rejected. Case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind And Others v. State of Punjab And Others, (Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 With Other Connected Appeals, Decided On 15.03.2000, Reported As (2000) 9 Scc 432 ) [Popularly Known As 'sirhind's Case'] 32. When the matter reached to the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others v. State of Punjab and Others', (Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 with other connected appeals, decided on 15.03.2000, reported as (2000) 9 SCC 432 ) [hereafter referred as, 'Sirhind's case'], a question was framed that "Whether the Clerks and Peons working at Octroi checkposts and barriers run by the concerned respondent - Municipal Committees constituted and functioning under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act') are entitled to be paid for each of the Saturday on which they worked at the octroi check-posts and barriers while their colleagues in the offices of the concerned Municipal Committees were permitted to enjoy those Saturdays as holidays". While answering the aforesaid issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that since the benefit of such weekly holiday or day off was denied only to a limited category of the Octroi staff, who, due to exigencies of the service may, at a given point of time, be required to work only in the offices but by rotation in the Octroi check-posts or barriers for collection of revenue for the State, legal right had vested in these categories of employees by reason of interchangeability and rotation of postings from office to field or the other way round and, thus, to avoid unfair discrimination arising out of posting orders, judgment was rendered in favour of aforementioned set of employees i.e. Clerks and Peons of Octroi check-posts and barriers. 33. 33. Hon'ble the Apex Court also framed another moot question i.e. "......as to whether the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service of the respondent-Municipal Committees who have a common employer and who have common seniority list and also common pay scales, when required to work either at the octroi checkpost or in the offices of the Municipal Committees, as the case may be, depending upon the exigencies of service in committees, can have an equal right to enjoy Saturdays as holidays and whether the right available to their entire cadre as such to enjoy weekly holidays be denied only to a limited category of octroi staff, who, due to exigencies of service may, at a given point of time, be required to work not only in the offices but by rotation in the octroi check-posts or barriers." 34. In the absence of any express provision in the Municipal bye laws, requiring all the staff members to have six days working per week, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "......it would not be open to the respondent - Municipal Committees to deny the benefit of non-working Saturdays only to those staff members who, because of the exigencies of service, discharge their duties at octroi check-posts or barriers rather than in the offices." Considering the situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court reached to the conclusion that there should not be any discrimination to the similarly situated employees. 35. Further, it was observed that the fact, whether employees of field staff have worked on Saturdays or not, cannot be decided by the Apex Court in the present proceedings and, therefore, by treating the employees before it, to be similarly situated, held that they cannot be subjected to the discrimination, therefore, they were asked to establish their claims by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 36. Thus, while modifying the High Court order, employees working in the field area were held equal to the employees of office staff and were relegated for filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID 1947. For reference, relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), are reproduced here-below: "3. These appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For reference, relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), are reproduced here-below: "3. These appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The common question which arise for our consideration in these appeals runs as under: "Whether the clerks and peons working at octroi check-posts and barriers run by the concerned respondent-Municipal Committees constituted and functioning under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act') are entitled to be paid for each of the Saturday on which they worked at the octroi checkposts and barriers while their colleagues in the offices of the concerned Municipal Committees were permitted to enjoy those Saturdays as holidays." xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. The appellants are employees of the respondent-Municipal Committees being peons belonging to Class-IV service and clerks belonging to Class-III service. It is also well established on the record that there is a common seniority of clerks and peons maintained by the concerned Municipal Committees and their pay scales are also the same. It is now found by the High Court and for which there cannot be any controversy that the octroi staff could be rotated vis-a-vis the staff in the offices of concerned Municipal Committees. Therefore, the only grievance is that when the clerks and peons are required to work at the octroi check-posts and barriers, they are not given the benefit of closed Saturdays, which according to them, results in discrimination or denial of their right which accrues to all the staff members similarly situated and who have the common employer, namely, the concerned Municipal Committees. 9. So far as this grievance is concerned we may mention that our attention was invited to a Government notification dated 11th December, 1986 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Establishment Branch) which stated that the holidays enumerated in the Schedule below (as mentioned in the Notification) shall be observed as public holidays in public office under the Punjab Government during the calendar year 1987. This Schedule shows that 52 Saturdays, amongst others, were to be observed as holidays. We are told that similar such Government notifications were issued from time to time in different calendar years. This Schedule shows that 52 Saturdays, amongst others, were to be observed as holidays. We are told that similar such Government notifications were issued from time to time in different calendar years. Result was that Punjab Government servants working in public offices under the State enjoyed 52 Sundays and 52 Saturdays as mentioned in the aforesaid Notification, which was filed as a specimen one. Placing reliance on this notification and other identical notifications as were issued from time to time by the State authorities, according to the appellants, all the State Government servants enjoyed the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays, meaning thereby, they had to work only for five days in a week. If that was so, this benefit would automatically accrue to the Municipal employees working in the Municipal Committees. In support of this contention our attention was invited to Rule 3 of the Punjab Municipal General Rules, 1979 (for short 1979 Rules') which reads as under: "3. General Principles [Sections 236 and 240(1)] - Every committee shall observe such general principles of administration as are followed in the departments of the State Government." xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 14. In our view, in the facts of the present case and in the light of the order which we propose to pass in the present proceedings it is strictly not necessary to examine this question finally. We may assume for the present discussion that Rule 3 of general rules may not cover this question. But even on this assumption the moot question remains as to whether the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service of the respondent-Municipal Committees who have common employer and who have common seniority list and also common pay scales, when required to work either at the octroi check-post or in the offices of the Municipal Committees, as the case may be, depending upon the exigencies of service in committees, can have an equal right to enjoy Saturdays as holidays and whether the right available to their entire cadre as such to enjoy such weekly holidays be denied only to a limited category of octroi staff, who, due to exigencies of service may, at a given point of time, be required to work not only in the offices but by rotation in the octroi check-posts or barriers. 15. 15. So far as this question is concerned unless there is any express provision in the Municipal Bye-laws requiring all the staff members to have six days' working-per week, in our view, it would not be open to the respondent-Municipal Committees to deny the benefit of non-working Saturdays only to those staff members who have because of the exigencies of service to discharge their duties at octroi check-posts or barriers rather than in the offices. But that would require a further question as to whether, at the relevant time at which the concerned employees like the appellants have actually worked on Saturdays, their colleagues in the offices had enjoyed such holidays and further whether the bye-laws of the concerned Municipal Committees required the employees, by way of their service conditions, to discharge their duties for six days in a week and, therefore, it was open to the Municipal authorities, looking to the exigencies and pressure of work, to give some additional concession to only those office staff members who would have been permitted not to come for work on any Saturdays. Therefore, all that we can lay down in the present proceedings is to the effect that if the appellants, at the relevant time at which they claim to have earned the right to enjoy holidays falling on Saturdays were made to work while their colleagues similarly situated like them, working in the offices of the Municipal Committees, were given the benefit of such holidays and when there were no bye-laws requiring the employees to work for 6 days in a week, then they would be entitled to be given monetary compensation for the working Saturdays by grant of extra wages for each of the working Saturday on which they are shown to have is charged their duties. 16. These questions cannot be resolved in the present proceedings and for that the appellants, if so advised, will have to be relegated to the remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein all these questions of fact can be thrashed out. 17. But this claim of the appellants will be subject to the further rider that at the relevant time the Government employees working under the different departments of the Punjab State had got the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays in a given year as declared by the State Government in exercise of its administrative powers. 17. But this claim of the appellants will be subject to the further rider that at the relevant time the Government employees working under the different departments of the Punjab State had got the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays in a given year as declared by the State Government in exercise of its administrative powers. It is not in dispute between the parties that if in a given calendar year the Punjab State employees had not enjoyed benefit of 52 closed Saturdays then the appellants would not be entitled to make any such claim. 18. Under these circumstances, the relief which is granted to all these appellant-employees by modification of the High Court's order will be as under :- 1. The appellants, by filing appropriate applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may, on proper computation, be entitled to get extra wages for each of the Saturdays of which they might have worked while their colleagues in the offices of the Municipal Committees had enjoyed benefit of Saturdays provided-the 52 Saturdays in a given calendar year were enjoyed by the employees of the State Government. 2. Even if the State Government employees had enjoyed the said benefit during the relevant calendar year but if the Municipal Committees had promulgated, at the relevant time, any bye-law under which the working conditions of the staff members were uniformly prescribed to be six days in a week, then, the question of granting any monetary benefit to the appellants would not survive. On the other hand if there was no such bye-law at the relevant time, then the appellants would be entitled to claim wages for the Saturdays on which they have actually worked when their colleagues in the offices had not worked and had enjoyed benefit of closed Saturdays. 19. If all these conditions are satisfied, then appropriate relief under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be granted to the appellants in appropriate proceedings. 20. It is made clear that in the writ petitions which were filed in the High Court either at the end of 1991 or in the beginning 1992 the writ petitioners cannot get any more monetary benefit, save and except, for the period of three years immediately preceding the filing of such petitions and thereafter continuously up-to-date, subject to aforesaid conditions being satisfied by them. In the petitions under Section 33C(2) the appellants, therefore, have to restrict their claims to the aforesaid extent. 21. It is also made clear that if any of the appellant-employees has retired in the meantime then the benefit which may be required to be computed would obviously be available to him or her till the date of retirement. All these questions are kept open for consideration of appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings. 22. It is also directed that if such applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are moved by the appellants, the same may be disposed of, after hearing the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such applications." 37. Thus, Hon'ble the Apex Court specifically directed the employees/workmen in Sirhind's case (supra), who were employees of the Octroi Department of the Municipal Councils/Municipal Corporations, to move applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for proper computation of the extra wages for each of the Saturday on which they might have worked while their colleagues in the offices of the Municipal Committee have enjoyed the benefit of taking rest on total 52 Saturdays in one calendar year. 38. From the reading of the judgment in Sirhind's case (supra), it can also be understood that there was no specific provision in the Municipal bye-laws regarding the six days working schedule. However, there being the notification dated 11.12.1986, issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Establishment Branch), total 52 Saturdays of the Calendar year 1987, were to be observed as holidays. Still, Hon'ble Apex Court considered and held that the employees posted in the offices and in the field area of octroi check-posts are similarly situated, as per their service conditions. 39. From the law laid down in Sirhind's case (supra), it is hard to believe that a uniform declaration, i.e. 'to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act', has been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in favour of all the employees of the State of Punjab, who are working in different Departments, and that the right to claim extra wages in lieu of working on Saturdays, exists in their favour. Spate of Writ Petitions After Judgment Passed In Sirhind's Case And Their Fate 40. Spate of Writ Petitions After Judgment Passed In Sirhind's Case And Their Fate 40. A spate of writ petitions were filed before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), seeking the relief in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (Supra). And, even in some of the cases, the employees/workmen directly instituted applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for determination of their claims, before the concerned Industrial Tribunals. Such writ petitions, came to be listed before Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, because as per the High Court Rules and Orders which were prevailing at that point of time, all the writ petitions were listed before a Division Bench, until and unless they reach the stage of admission. 41. A Division Bench of this Court, while deciding two writ petitions, titled as Resham Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 19852 of 2002, decided on 13.12.2002), and Pritam Bhagat and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 19853 of 2002, decided on 13.10.2002), observed that by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), petitioners therein (in CWP No. 19852 of 2002) are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, as their right to receive monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest Court of the land. In fact, it is the order dated 13.12.2002, passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), which gave an idea to the employees throughout the State of Punjab and Haryana to assume their pre-existing right for seeking extra wages/monetary claim for having worked on Saturdays/holidays. 42. It would be apt to understand the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), dated 13.12.2002, passed in Resham Singh's case (supra), which fell as a reason of raising claim for extra wages in lieu of duty performed on Saturdays, by way of filing application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. For reference, order dated 13.12.2002, passed in Resham Singh's case (supra), is reproduced herebelow: "Present: Shri. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Swatanter Kumar, J. This order of ours shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 19852 of 2002 and Civil Writ Petition No.19853 of 2002 as the similar questions of fact and law are involved. For reference, order dated 13.12.2002, passed in Resham Singh's case (supra), is reproduced herebelow: "Present: Shri. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Swatanter Kumar, J. This order of ours shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 19852 of 2002 and Civil Writ Petition No.19853 of 2002 as the similar questions of fact and law are involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 19852 of 2002. In this petition under Articles 226/227 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 & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No.8434 of 1997 decided on 15.3.2002, copy of the judgment being annexed to this writ petition as Annexure P-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 others there were two direction issued are: 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 section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purpose of proper computation in respect of the monetary benefit arising therefrom. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has given finality to the dispute between the parties. The State Government is 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 government to compel its employees to seek Redressal of their grievances through process of the court. In this regard, detailed directions are issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satbir Singh & another v. The State of Haryana & Ors Civil Writ Petition No.4382 of 2002 decided on 21.3.2002. In this regard, detailed directions are issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satbir Singh & another v. The State of Haryana & Ors Civil Writ Petition No.4382 of 2002 decided on 21.3.2002. We do hope that the government 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. In any case, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 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 and. 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 respondents would not compel the petitioners to take to such procedural law. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- Swatanter Kumar Judge Sd/- Viney Mittal Judge December 13, 2002" 43. Since, the Hon'ble Division Bench granted liberty to file applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, employees/workmen approached the concerned Industrial Tribunals with such applications. And after decision of the applications by respective Industrial Tribunals, present set of writ petitions were filed before this Court, by the affected parties, as has already been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. 44. It would also be significant to mention that though not directly emerging out of entitlement of claiming extra wages as a right of an employee, and then to claim the same under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, yet the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has discussed the scope of the area, where the right of grant of extra benefit can be enforced on the issue of discrimination within the similarly situated set of employees, i.e. among equals, as has been held in Sirhind's case (supra). 45. 45. In another case, titled as Balbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11990 of 2004, decided on 16.12.2005), the employees who were working on the posts of Drivers, Cleaners, Mate, and Beldar etc. in the Public Works Department (B&R), Punjab, had claimed the entitlement of extra wages in lieu of duty performed on all Saturdays and other gazetted holidays, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). However, their claim was rejected by the Executive Engineer/Department itself vide order dated 11.07.2003, which was assailed before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh's case (supra). Hon'ble Division Bench in Balbir Singh's case (supra) found that no member of the cadre belonging to the petitioners therein, was ever granted the benefit of holidays on Saturdays or Sundays and comparison was sought to be made between the non-technical staff, which was devoted to the office work and the petitioners, who were deputed on duty in the field. Hon'ble Division Bench also came to the conclusion that judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) has no application to the facts of said case (Balbir Singh's case), as no so called discrimination was established which was sought to be projected. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioners in Balbir Singh's case (supra) was rejected and writ petition was dismissed. 46. On 06.12.2018 itself, when order was passed in LPA No. 130 of 2018 and other connected appeals (supra), another appeal titled as 'Davinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others' (LPA No. 482 of 2018, decided on 06.12.2018), pertaining to an employee of the State of Haryana, also came up for consideration before the same Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench, wherein challenge was made to the judgment and order dated 24.01.2018, passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition wherein relief was sought to command the State-respondent to not to compel the petitioner (appellant in the LPA) to attend his duties on Saturdays and other holidays notified as public holidays or in alternative to direct the State-respondent to pay extra wages to the petitioner for attending his duties on Saturdays and other notified public holidays. After consideration, the Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench/ Division Bench formed an opinion in the said appeal that the issues raised in the case are disputed questions of fact which require adjudication on the basis of evidence and can be better gone into by a fact finding authority. Thus, can be more effectively considered by Labour Court in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. While reaching to the said conclusion, Hon'ble LPA Bench of this Court placed reliance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Accordingly, while disposing of the said appeal, relegated the appellant/petitioner therein to file appropriate application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act for adjudication of the issue. While doing so, certain conditions were also imposed to be fulfilled by both the sides. For ready reference, judgment and order dated 06.12.2018, passed in the case of Davinder Singh (supra) is reproduced as under:- "Krishna Murari, C.J. (Oral) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is being disposed of finally. This intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking a relief to command the State-respondent not to compel the petitioner (appellant herein) to attend his duties on Saturdays and other holidays notified as public holidays or in alternative to direct the State-respondent to pay extra wages to the petitioner for attending his duties on Saturdays and other notified public holidays. 2. Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner is working in the office of the Transport Department of the State of Haryana. Initially he was appointed as a Storeman on 27.11.1979. Subsequently, he was promoted to the posts of Assistant Store Keeper and Store Keeper in the years 1993 and 1997 respectively and thereafter he was promoted as Chief Store Keeper on 04.11.2011. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Store Purchase Officer on 30.03.2017. Various posts held by the petitioner in the Department fall in the category of ministerial staff. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Store Purchase Officer on 30.03.2017. Various posts held by the petitioner in the Department fall in the category of ministerial staff. Placing reliance on the notification issued by the State of Haryana declaring all Saturdays and Sundays to have been notified as holidays, it was alleged that he is being asked to work and attend his duties on Saturday which has been declared as public holiday by the State of Haryana. 3. In reply to the legal notice issued by the appellant-petitioner, the fact has been admitted that he holds the post which falls in the category of ministerial staff and that Saturday has been declared to be a public holiday. However, since his duties are directly connected to public service and as such like other staff holding ministerial posts whose duties are linked to public service, he is also required to attend his duties on Saturdays. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge without considering the aforesaid facts and the ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2000(9) SCC 432 wrongly and illegally dismissed the writ petition. 5. Learned State counsel vehemently contends that since the appellant is not a workman, as he belongs to the cadre of ministerial staff and governed by Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana, he would not be entitled to wages for having worked on a public holiday. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. In our considered opinion, all these are disputed questions of fact which require adjudication on the basis of evidence and can be better gone into by a fact finding authority. Even the issue as to whether the appellant is a workman or not can also be considered and adjudicated upon by a fact finding authority. 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the issue can be more effectively considered by Labour Court in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the issue can be more effectively considered by Labour Court in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). In identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others (supra) relegated the petitioners therein to avail the remedy of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by making the following directions:- (i) Appellant-petitioner may file appropriate application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and on adjudication of the issue that he is covered under the definition of workman and if found entitled to extra wages for each of the Saturdays he might have worked while his other colleagues belonging to ministerial staff and holding technical and non-technical posts have enjoyed Saturdays as holiday, then he will be entitled to the same. (ii) If it is shown by the State-respondent that at the relevant time any instructions were issued under which the working condition of the appellant-petitioner and other similarly situated ministerial staff were unilaterally prescribed to be six days in a week then the question of granting monetary benefit to the appellant-petitioner would not survive. (iii) On fulfillment of all the conditions appropriate relief under section 33-C(2) of the Act may be granted to the appellant-petitioner but the same has to be confined to three years immediately after preceding the filing of the instant petition and thereafter continuously upto date. Thus, the application is to be filed under section 33-C(2) of the Act and the appellant-petitioner has to restrict his claim accordingly. (iv) If the appellant-petitioner makes any such application under section 33-C(2) of the Act within a period of three months from today, then the same be disposed of expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of such application. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of to the extent directed above and the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to that extent. (Krishna Murari) Chief Justice (Arun Palli) Judge 06.12.2018" 47. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of to the extent directed above and the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to that extent. (Krishna Murari) Chief Justice (Arun Palli) Judge 06.12.2018" 47. Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) while dismissing the case titled as Harmesh Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 20836 of 2014, decided on 07.10.2014, reported as 2015 (2) SCT 157), held as under:- "9. I do not think that the writ jurisdiction ought to be invoked in a case of this kind which authority is meant to come in aid of cases of hostile and invidious discrimination such as amongst those who were equally placed in the same nursery or string of nurseries governed by one department of the Government and are being treated unequally and unfairly, then court intervention is possible and must follow. The special type of work performed in farms, gardens and nurseries by themselves is the singular object and the intelligible differentia dividing the two groups of employees separating workers in nurseries from those who perform duties in Government offices. The Notification dated 07.04.1980 issued by the Government of Punjab does not address itself to the petitioners and therefore their reliance on it is misplaced. It does not apply to employees working in farms, gardens and nurseries insofar as working hours are concerned, for them to claim parity with Government offices where people work from 9:00 AM to 5:00PM with half an hour break. The needs are disparate. The requirements are widely different. This is simply because the notification speaks of 'offices'. A farm or nursery is not an office stricto sensu where blue-collar staff is found working. Though a part of the farm or a nursery may have an adjunct office but the part would be severable from the main activity where the petitioners may be found occasionally but do not work." 48. A farm or nursery is not an office stricto sensu where blue-collar staff is found working. Though a part of the farm or a nursery may have an adjunct office but the part would be severable from the main activity where the petitioners may be found occasionally but do not work." 48. While deciding case titled as Nagar Council, Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others (LPA No. 1178 of 2015, decided on 26.04.2016, reported as 2016 (3) SCT 481 : 2016 SCC Online P&H 10136), Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) observed as under:- " It is, thus, evident that the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. We have failed to discover the so called discrimination, which is sought to be projected in the present case. The petitioners belong to the field staff and cannot seek parity with the office staff and, therefore, they cannot seek equal treatment with the unequal. Therefore, we do not find any legal justification to accept the claim made by the petitioners. For the reasons stated above this petition fails and the same is dismissed. If the aforesaid principles of law are applied in the case of the respondent-workmen, the only conclusion which can be reached is that the they are not entitled to the relief prayed for, for the reason that none of the employees in the cadre of the respondent-workmen are working in the office enjoying Saturday as a holiday. As the respondent-workmen are not employees working in the office, rather they are working as Beldar, Fitter and Mali in the field, hence, the judgment in Municipal Employees Union (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The respondent workmen cannot equate themselves with the staff working in the office. They belong to the field staff, hence, the plea of discrimination is totally misconceived. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside." 49. The respondent workmen cannot equate themselves with the staff working in the office. They belong to the field staff, hence, the plea of discrimination is totally misconceived. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside." 49. In the case of Nathu Ram and others v. Bhakra Beas Management Board (CWP No.2060 of 2003, decided on 24.02.2003), Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) while deciding a similar controversy and similar prayer noticed that although the petitioners before it rendered duties for six working days in every week, but there was no parity in controversy where the petitioners in whose case the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in Sirhind case. The Hon'ble Division Bench also found that the petitioners therein were attached as Field Officers in the Field Offices, worked for six days in a week and were allowed field holidays as sanctioned on year to year basis. Thus, their claim for extra wages for Saturdays was turned down. 50. In the case of Om Parkash Aerry and others v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 9934 of 2004, decided on 20.07.2004, reported as 2004 SCC Online P&H 1461 : (2004) 5 SLR 61 (DB) : 2004 (4) SCT 55), Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) dealt with the issue of extra wages for working on Saturdays. In the said case, the petitioners who were employees of the Bakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB) were aggrieved by a notification dated 27.05.1983, vide which it was decided that all employees whether regular or work-charge working in the field offices would work for six days in a week. A claim for extra work done after office hours and on holidays was also made. Admittedly, employees in field establishments received compensation by way of additional casual leaves besides normal casual leaves and field holidays. They were even granted fixed travelling allowances for 12 full daily allowances in a month. Hon'ble Division Bench, after having considered the claim made by the petitioners in Om Parkash Aerry's case (supra) on its merits, while distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) dismissed the said petition. 51. They were even granted fixed travelling allowances for 12 full daily allowances in a month. Hon'ble Division Bench, after having considered the claim made by the petitioners in Om Parkash Aerry's case (supra) on its merits, while distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) dismissed the said petition. 51. In Sat Pal Puri v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Civil Appeal No. 2235 of 2008, decided on 21.02.2008, reported as (2008) 4 SCC 216 : Law Finder Doc Id # 145897), their Lordships' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court again dealt with the issue of extra wages for working on Saturdays and holidays. In this case and various other appeals connected therewith, Division Bench judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), passed in the case of Sat Pal Puri and others v. State of Punjab and another (RA No. 64 of 2003 in CWP No. 19838 of 2002, decided on 11.03.2003), was under challenge. 52. In Sat Pal Puri's case (supra), the employees/appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court, initially filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming parity in the matter of remuneration for working on Saturdays and Sundays in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), wherein it was opined that in the absence of any express provision to the contrary in Municipal bye-laws, the octroi staff could not be denied the benefit of non-working Saturdays and, thus, when required to work on such Saturdays, they could be granted extra wages in lieu thereof, and that factual foundation for such claim was required to be established. It was also opined in Sirhind's case (supra) that in the event if the employees had filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, the same may be entertained. 53. The Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in some cases even without notice, allowed the writ petitions filed by the employees, opining that the State of Punjab cannot deny the said benefit to the employees of other departments. 54. Thereupon, the Punjab State Electricity Board filed an application for review of the said judgment and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2003, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) is not applicable in the case of Sat Pal Puri (supra). 54. Thereupon, the Punjab State Electricity Board filed an application for review of the said judgment and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2003, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) is not applicable in the case of Sat Pal Puri (supra). Thus, the matter reached the Hon'ble Apex Court. 55. In Sat Pal Puri's case (supra), their Lordships' considered the question as to whether the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of Sat Pal Puri's case as well. 56. In its judgment passed in Sat Pal Puri's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court found that - The Punjab State Electricity Board was constituted and incorporated in terms of sections 5 and 12 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Under Section 79(c) of the 1948 Act, the PSEB, subject to compliance of the statutory requirements contained therein, is entitled to frame its own regulations. It is permissible for the Board to frame different regulations for different categories of employees. It is a department of the State of Punjab. The employees/appellants before the Apex Court belong to the technical category, Service Grade III, requiring to perform field duties. Supply of electricity is a public utility function of the Board. The Board therefore is required to have technical staff at their disposal, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Several regulations have been framed by the Board and several agreements have also been entered into by and between the Union and the Board. Some of the employees are also governed by the provisions of the 1948 Act. There are three categories of workmen, which are governed by different terms and conditions of service in regard to enjoyment of holidays; viz. (a)Technical Staff (Regular) Work charged covered under the Factories Act 1948. (b) Regular Technical Field Staff not covered under the Factories Act. (c) Work charged employees not covered under the Factories Act. Local outdoor duty allowance (LODA) to different categories of Technical/Field staff employees working on different duties e.g. those working in the operations and R.E. Divisions, construction organizations is paid. The technical field staff would be entitled to the holidays in a calendar year, as stipulated in the circular letter dated 5.4.1972, namely i) Saturdays on alternate months-not exceeding five. Local outdoor duty allowance (LODA) to different categories of Technical/Field staff employees working on different duties e.g. those working in the operations and R.E. Divisions, construction organizations is paid. The technical field staff would be entitled to the holidays in a calendar year, as stipulated in the circular letter dated 5.4.1972, namely i) Saturdays on alternate months-not exceeding five. ii) Half the number of Gazetted Holidays notified by the Board for the other staff. The Punjab State Electricity Board had issued another circular letter dated 27.10.1986 in the following terms: (i) all the officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board shall function from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. from Monday to Friday with lunch break from 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. i.e. the same office timings of the Government of Punjab. (ii) The offices of the Electricity Board shall remain closed on all the Saturdays and Sundays. (iii) The same holidays shall be observed in the offices of the Punjab State Electricity Board as are being observed in the office of the Punjab Government. 57. Having gone through the contents of the aforementioned circular dated 27.10.1986, Hon'ble Apex Court was clear in its mind that the same would be applicable only in respect of the officers and employees working in the office of the Electricity Board and not the Field Staff. The circular letter dated 5.4.1972 has not been repealed by circular letter dated 27.10.1986. 58. Accordingly, in para Nos. 11 to 13 of the judgment in Sat Pal Puri's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "11. In view of the fact that the technical staff of the Board are governed by regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the 1948 Act the appellants herein do not have any existing legal right so as to enable them to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 12. We have noticed hereinabove that even in Municipal Employees Union's case (supra), this Court opined that the octroi staff could be entitled to the said benefit of non-working Saturdays and when required to work on such Saturdays, were entitled to extra wages in lieu thereof, if they are not governed by any of the rule. In the case the appellants being governed by statutory rules, they would not be entitled to file applications under Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act. 13. In the case the appellants being governed by statutory rules, they would not be entitled to file applications under Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs." Evolution of The Theory of Five-Day Work Week 59. Before answering the question of law involved in these writ petitions, it is apposite to understand the origin and evolution of 'five days work in a week'. With the help and assistance of the counsel appearing before this Court and some research work being done to know, as to how the theory of five days working week was evolved, it come to fore as under:- Evolution of five-day workweek 60. The evolution of the five-day workweek, with Saturday and Sunday off, is a culmination of historical, economic, and social developments. Initially, work schedules were heavily influenced by agricultural cycles, often requiring labour seven days a week to tend to crop and livestock. However, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, there was a significant shift towards factory and urban work, prompting changes in Labour practices. 61. Labour movements gained momentum as workers sought better conditions and shorter hours. One pivotal moment was Henry Ford's implementation of a 40-hour workweek in 1926 for his automotive factories, motivated by both productivity concerns and pressure from Labour unions. This decision set a precedent that spread to other industries, gradually establishing the Monday-to-Friday workweek. Legislation played a crucial role in codifying these changes. The Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 in the United States standardized the 40-hour workweek and introduced regulations for overtime pay. This legislation helped solidify the concept of the weekend as a time for rest and leisure, with Saturday and Sunday becoming universally recognized days off for many workers. 62. Over time, societal attitudes shifted towards prioritizing work-life balance, further reinforcing the acceptance of the five-day workweek. Additionally, globalisation and technological advancements have reshaped work practices, with some industries adopting more flexible schedules to accommodate global operations. 63. In summary, the evolution of the five-day workweek with Saturday and Sunday off is a multifaceted process shaped by historical, economic, legislative, and cultural factors. Additionally, globalisation and technological advancements have reshaped work practices, with some industries adopting more flexible schedules to accommodate global operations. 63. In summary, the evolution of the five-day workweek with Saturday and Sunday off is a multifaceted process shaped by historical, economic, legislative, and cultural factors. It represents a balance between the demands of productivity and the need for leisure time, with ongoing efforts to adapt to changing societal expectations and work dynamics. Indian Context 64. In the Indian context, the origination of the five-day workweek and the subsequent establishment of the six-day workweek can be traced back to various historical, economic, and regulatory factors. Initially, labour laws such as the Factories Act, 1948, which stipulated a maximum of 48 hours of work per week with a limit of 9 hours per day for adult workers, laid the groundwork for regulating working hours in factories. 65. The concept of the five-day workweek began to gain traction as industrialization progressed and labour movements advocated for better working conditions. However, the specific adoption of a five-day workweek with Saturday and Sunday off was influenced by both global trends and local practices. 66. One significant milestone in this evolution was the implementation of a five-day workweek by certain multinational corporations and large Indian companies, aligning with international standards and promoting employee well-being. This adoption was also facilitated by amendments to labour laws and regulations that allowed for flexibility in scheduling while ensuring compliance with prescribed limits on working hours. 67. On the other hand, the six-day workweek remained prevalent in many sectors, especially those not covered under specific regulations mandating a five-day workweek. Industries such as retail, hospitality, and small-scale enterprises often operated on a six-day schedule, reflecting variations in labour practices across different sectors and regions in India. Relevant Satutory Provisions Re: Conditions of Services of The Employees 68. It is important to mention that this Court has faced a great difficulty to find out the rules/regulations/bye-laws governing the conditions of services of various sets of employees, because, in most of the cases, neither the same have been expressly pleaded or produced on record, before the Industrial Tribunals while filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, nor before this Court at the time of filing of writ petitions by respective parties. Barring few of learned counsel who have argued in the matter, in most of cases, no reference of such statutory provisions governing the conditions of services, was made at the time of addressing of respective arguments. Accordingly, only such rules/regulations/Bye-laws are being referred in the judgment, which came to the notice of this Court while scrutiny of writ petitions or referred during course of arguments by learned counsel. Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I 69. After scrutiny of each and every file of 511 writ petitions, this Court found that the employees whose rights are involved are/were working in different capacities, different institutions/departments and governed by different set of Acts, Rules and Bye-laws. However, one fact is crystal clear that for the present, the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (hereafter referred to as, 'the Punjab CSR') would act as a 'magna carta', inasmuch as, the provisions contained therein are applied in almost all the services in the State of Punjab, irrespective of the fact that a different set of rules/regulations/bye-laws are also framed regulating the conditions of service in a particular department. 70. Having gone through the different sets of rules, regulations and bye-laws, which are applicable to the conditions of service of the employees in these writ petitions, this Court found that though not in all, but in most of such statutory provisions, it is provided that the provisions of the Punjab CSR are applicable in respect of the matters, not specifically provided in a particular set of rules. 71. For the sake of convenience, relevant provisions of the Punjab CSR, are reproduced hereunder: Rule 2.13 of the Punjab CSR "2.13. Compensatory allowance means an allowance granted to meet personal expenditure necessitated by the special circumstances in which duty is performed. It includes traveling allowance, dearness allowance but does not include a sumptuary allowance nor the grant of a free passage by sea to or from any place outside India. Note.- See the explanation and note 1 under rule 2.52." Rule 2.29 of the Punjab CSR "2.29. Holiday means:- (a) a holiday prescribed or notified by or under section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and (b) in relation to any particular office a day on which such office is ordered, by notification in the Gazette or otherwise to be closed for the transaction of Government business without reserve or qualification. Holiday means:- (a) a holiday prescribed or notified by or under section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and (b) in relation to any particular office a day on which such office is ordered, by notification in the Gazette or otherwise to be closed for the transaction of Government business without reserve or qualification. Note.- This term does not include "local holiday" which may be granted at the discretion of Head of Offices: provided there are no arrears of work, nor such merely discretionary holidays as the last Saturday of each month." Rule 2.30 of the Punjab CSR "2.30. Honorarium means a recurring or non-recurring payment granted to a Government employee from the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of a State (including the Punjab State) or the Consolidated Fund of a Union Territory as remuneration for special work of an occasional or intermittent character. Note 1.- No honorarium should be paid in respect of any work which can fairly be regarded as part of the legitimate duties of the Government employees concerned. Note 2.- It is one of the liabilities of Government employees to have to work outside office hours in exceptional times and circumstances. No honoraria should ordinarily be given on this account, but continuous working out of office hours may justify a claim to honoraria or to special pay. Note 3.- No honoraria should be paid to Government employees for attending meetings of boards and committees financed wholly or partly from Government revenues. Note 4.- No honorarium should be granted to Group "A" and Group "B" officers engaged on work in connection with the setting up of companies, corporations, etc. which forms a part of their normal duties even if they work beyond office hours." Rule 2.44 of the Punjab CSR "2.44. "pay" means - (a) the basic pay, that is the amount drawn monthly by a Government employee in the scale of pay of the post held by him, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre; and (b) includes any other employments which may specifically be classed as part of pay by the competent authority." Rule 2.52 of the Punjab CSR "2.52. Special pay means an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of Government employees, granted in consideration of:- (a) the specially arduous nature of duties; (b) a specific addition to the work or responsibility and includes non-practising allowance granted to doctors in lieu of private practice. Explanation. - The circumstances which justify the grant to a Government employee of special pay are entirely different in character from those which justify the grant of a compensatory allowance, a difference emphasized in the definition of those terms embodied in rules 2.13 and 2.52. These definitions should be strictly construed and an exact compliance required with the conditions stated in them as antecedent to the grant of either special pay or compensatory allowance. There is no necessary inter-dependence between special pay and compensatory allowance. It is not the intention of the rules either that where the cost of living would justify the grant to a Government employee of a compensatory allowance, he should be rendered ineligible for such allowance, because he has already been granted special pay in recognition of the duties and responsibilities of his post, or that if the attachment of special pay to a post is justified under the terms of the rules, it should be subject to reduction because for reasons essentially different, a compensatory allowance as defined in rule 2.13 is subsequently granted. Note 1.- The reasons for the grant of a special pay and compensatory allowance should be recorded in the sanctioning order so that their classification may be duly watched in audit. In cases in which an official record in an open letter is considered undesirable, it should be possible to communicate the reason confidentially to the Accountant-General. Note 2.- Omitted. Note 3.- A provision in the contract of a Government employee appointed to a particular post that he should "also do all things that may be required of him" does not contemplate his being required to perform onerous additional duties in another post without remuneration." Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR "3.10. Note 2.- Omitted. Note 3.- A provision in the contract of a Government employee appointed to a particular post that he should "also do all things that may be required of him" does not contemplate his being required to perform onerous additional duties in another post without remuneration." Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR "3.10. Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government employee is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim or additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from Union or State revenues, or from the revenues of a local fund." 72. Rule 2.13 of the Punjab CSR defines the meaning of 'compensatory allowance'; Rule 2.29 explains the meaning of 'holiday'; Rule 2.30 defines the meaning of 'Honorarium'; Rule 2.44 defines meaning of 'pay'; and Rule 2.52 explains the meaning of 'special pay'. These statutory provisions of the Punjab CSR also entail the conditions and circumstances under which these can be granted to the employees, for example - (i) 'Compensatory allowance' is granted to meet personal expenditure necessitated by the special circumstances in which duty is performed. (ii) 'Honorarium' is granted as a remuneration for 'special work' of an occasional or intermittent character. However, as per Note 1 below Rule 2.30, no honorarium should be paid in respect of any work which can fairly be regarded as part of the legitimate duties of the Government employees concerned. (iii) 'Pay' is the amount drawn monthly by a Government employee in the scale of pay of the post held by him, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre, and also includes any other emoluments which may specifically be classed as part of pay by the competent authority. (iv) 'Special pay' is an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of Government employees, which is granted in consideration of the 'specially arduous nature of duties' or for a specific addition to the work or responsibility. 73. In the Punjab CSR, neither there is any definition defining the meaning of words 'extra wages' nor there exists any specific rule for grant or payment of such 'extra wages' to the employees. 73. In the Punjab CSR, neither there is any definition defining the meaning of words 'extra wages' nor there exists any specific rule for grant or payment of such 'extra wages' to the employees. As per the express provisions of the Punjab CSR, for any extra ordinary duty or special work done by the employees, the competent authority can grant or extend the benefit of compensatory allowance, honorarium and special pay, in addition to their 'pay'. 74. It is nobody's case in the present set of writ petitions that the employees have ever agitated their claim for grant of aforementioned monetary benefits, i.e. in the nature of compensatory allowance or honorarium or special pay in lieu of the duty performed by them on Saturdays/holidays. Rather, their sole claim is for payment of 'extra wages' for working on Saturdays, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 75. As per definition of the word 'holiday', under Rule 2.29 of the Punjab CSR, holiday is a day on which a particular office is ordered to be closed for the transaction of Government business without reserve or qualification, by notifying the same in the Gazette. 76. Lastly comes Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, which in essence, establishes that unless specifically stipulated otherwise, the entirety of government employees' time, is under the control of the Government that employ them. This rule grants the Government authority to assign tasks to employees as deemed necessary by the appropriate authority, without the need for additional compensation. Whether the services required of the employee are typically remunerated from Union or State revenues, or from the revenues of a local fund, the Government retains the discretion to utilize the employees time as it deems fit within the scope of their duties. The Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 77. The Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (hereafter referred as, 'the General and Common Rules') have been framed by the State of Punjab under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the recruitment and general and common conditions of service of persons appointed to Group 'A', Group 'B' and Group 'C' services in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab. 78. 78. Under Rule 2(g) & 2(h) of the General and Common Rules, the meaning of 'Service' and 'Service Rules' has been defined, as under:- "2(g) "Service" means and Group 'A' Service, Group 'B' Service and Group 'C' Service constituted in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab as per scales given in the Appendix; 2(h) "Service Rules" means the service rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulating the recruitment and conditions of service other than the general and common conditions of services of persons appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab;" 79. For the present context, Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the General and Common Rules are relevant, and the same are reproduced as under:- "8. Seniority - The seniority inter se of persons appointed to posts in each cadre of a Service shall be determined by the length of continuous service on such post in that cadre of the Service. Provided that in the case of persons recruited by direct appointment who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a maximum of four months from the date of order of appointment the order of merit determined by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, shall not be disturbed. Provided further that in case a person is permitted to join the post after the expiry of the said period of four months in consultation with the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the post: Provided further that in the case of two or more persons appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- a) a person appointed by direct appointment shall be senior to a person appointed otherwise: b) a person appointed by promotion shall be senior to a person appointed by transfer; c) in the case of persons appointed by promotion or transfer, the seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such persons in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and d) in the case of persons appointed by transfer from different cadres their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a person who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment; and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then by their length of service in these appointments and if the length of service is also the same an older person shall be senior to a younger person; Provided further that in the case of persons recruited by direct appointment in the same cadre obtaining equal marks during same selection process, there inter-se-seniority shall be determined on the basis of their age. That is, an older person shall be senior to the younger person. Note: Seniority of persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ad hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of such regular appointment. 9. Liability of members of Service to transfer. A member of a Service may be transferred to any post whether included in any other service or not, on the same terms and conditions as are specified in rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, part-I. 10. Liability to serve. A member of a service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab, on being ordered so to do by the appointing authority. 11. Leave, Pension and other matters. Liability to serve. A member of a service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab, on being ordered so to do by the appointing authority. 11. Leave, Pension and other matters. In respect of pay, leave, pension and all other matters not expressly provided for in these rules, a member of a Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may hereafter be adopted or made by the competent authority." 80. As per Rule 8 of the General and Common Rules, the inter se seniority of the members of the Service to which these rules apply, has to be determined cadre-wise in the manner as provided in the said rule. Therefore, there can't be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of a Service. 81. Under Rule 9 of the General and Common Rules, it is provided that a member of a Service may be transferred to any post, whether included in any other service or not, on the same terms and conditions as are specified in Rule 3.17 of the Punjab CSR. 82. Rule 10 of the General and Common Rules further contemplates that a member of a service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab, on being ordered to do so, by the appointing authority. Statutory Provisions re: conditions of Services of the employees of Municipalities 83. Provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for brevity, 'the 1911 Act'), inter alia prescribe constitution of Municipalities such as Municipal or Nagar Councils, Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Committees and Municipal Corporations; conduct of their business; and constitution of Municipal Services. As per Section 38(1) of the 1911 Act, the following Municipal Services can be constituted by the State Government:- (i) Punjab Service of Municipal Executive Officers; (ii) Punjab Service of Municipal Engineers and Sectional Officers; (iii) Punjab Service of Municipal Health Officers; (iv) Punjab Service of Municipal Secretaries; (v) Punjab Service of Municipal Accountants; and (vi) Such other Municipal Services as the State Government may decide. 84. 84. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the 1911 Act also empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of the members of the Municipal Services referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the 1911 Act, as well as to make classification of such Services. Sub-section (3) of Section 38 further provides that the State Government may transfer any member of a Municipal Service from a post in one committee to a post carrying the same scale of pay in another committee. 85. Accordingly, State of Punjab enacted various rules for governing the condition of services of different set of Municipal Services. However, considering the fact that cases of a particular set of municipal employees are before this Court for consideration, only the following set of rules are being discussed. (i) The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986. (ii) The Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977. (iii) The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984. (iv) The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975. The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986 86. The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986, are applicable to the posts specified in Appendix "A' attached therewith, namely, Daftri, Light Patroller, Dai, Head Mali, Mate, Chowkidar, Peon, Anti-Malaria Beldar, Beldar/Labourer, Fitter/Coolie, Helper, Cleaner, Mali, Munad, Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Record Lifter, Keyman, Recovery Baillif, Khalasi and Oilman. 87. Perusal of these rules shows that it deals with number and character of posts; appointing authority; nationality, domicile and character of candidates appointed to the Service; disqualification; age, method of appointment and qualifications, probation of persons appointed to the Service; seniority of members of the Service; resignation from the Service; retirement; procedure for imposing penalties; authority competent to impose penalties; pay and allowances; leave; gratuity; uniform; and contributory provident fund etc. 88. Under Rule 10, the inter se seniority of the members of the Service to which these rules applies, has to be determined cadre-wise in the manner as provided in the said rule. Therefore, there can't be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply . 89. 88. Under Rule 10, the inter se seniority of the members of the Service to which these rules applies, has to be determined cadre-wise in the manner as provided in the said rule. Therefore, there can't be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply . 89. Under Rule 23, which deals with 'over riding effect', it is manifested that 'the provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein so far as the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other rules with respect to such matters'. And, Rule 24 relating to 'Interpretation' provides that 'if any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same'. 90. Rule 10, 23 and 24 of the Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986, are reproduced as under:- "10. Seniority of members of the Service.- The seniority inter se of the members, in each cadre, shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may from time to time be extended by the appointing authority subject to a maximum of four months from the date of order of appointment, the order of merit determined shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of four months, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in the case any candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso. Note.- This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on provisional basis, and their seniority shall be determined as soon as they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of their regular appointment. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 23. Note.- This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on provisional basis, and their seniority shall be determined as soon as they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of their regular appointment. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 23. Over riding effect.- The provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein so far as the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other rules with respect to such matters. 24. Interpretation. - If any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same." The Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977 91. The Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977 (for short, 'the Fire Brigade Rules') are applicable to all Municipalities in the State of Punjab. Standing Orders for Members of Fire Brigade 92. As per Rule 3(a) of the Fire Brigade Rules, every Committee establishing a Fire Brigade shall with the approval of the Director, Local Government, Punjab, frame standing orders to regulate the formation and working of such brigade. It is also provided under Rule 3 that amongst other things, such standing orders shall also provide for the strength of organization, place of residence, discipline, nature of duty etc. of the brigade. 93. In terms of the Fire Brigade Rules, standing orders were framed for the formation and working of Fire Brigades in the State, vide Memo. No. FO-DLG-88/24496-24522, dated 15.06.1988, relevant clauses of which are discussed as under:- Clause 17 Each member of the fire brigade shall be supplied items of uniforms at the cost of the Municipal Committee concerned as per scale laid down. Clause 18 Prescribes for payment of Uniform Upkeep Allowance to Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, Fire Station Officer and Sub Fire Officer. Clause 20 Provides that all members of the fire brigade staff shall be provided with rent free accommodation within the fire station premises or as near to the fire station as possible. Clause 20(i) & (ii) Provides for free water and free electricity, at the prescribed scale. Clause 20(iii) Where any member of fire brigade staff is not provided with free accommodation, in lieu thereof, house rent at the rates admissible to other members of Government or Local Body employees, is required to be paid. Clause 20(i) & (ii) Provides for free water and free electricity, at the prescribed scale. Clause 20(iii) Where any member of fire brigade staff is not provided with free accommodation, in lieu thereof, house rent at the rates admissible to other members of Government or Local Body employees, is required to be paid. Clause 21 Stipulates that 'All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to 20 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty . The special casual leave, shall be added to individuals casual leave account and the officer in charge shall see that not more than 10% of the staff is allowed leave at any time. Clauses 22 & 23 Makes provision for out door games, indoor games, newspapers, magazines and other penodicals of interest relating to fire service. 94. Revised Standing Orders were framed for the formation and working of Fire Brigades in the State, vide Memo. No. 1DLG-TSC-(F)- 04/12644-676, dated 09.07.2004, and the relevant clauses of which are discussed as under:- Clause 20 Stipulates that 'All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty . One day weekly off allowed to all fire brigade employees in rotation wise or as per the officer in charge of the fire station. The special casual leave shall be added to individual's casual leave account and the officer in charge shall see that not more than 10% of the staff is allowed leave at any time. Clause 23 All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to risk allowance as admissible to the Delhi Fire Service from time to time. 95. The special casual leave shall be added to individual's casual leave account and the officer in charge shall see that not more than 10% of the staff is allowed leave at any time. Clause 23 All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to risk allowance as admissible to the Delhi Fire Service from time to time. 95. Reading of the afore-stated Standing Orders framed under the provisions of the Fire Brigade Rules makes it evident that certain extra incentives and service benefits, such as supply of uniforms at the cost of the Municipality; payment of Uniform Upkeep Allowance; providing of rent free accommodation within the fire station premises or as near to the fire station as possible and if not provided in lieu thereof, house rent at the rates admissible to other members of Government; free water and free electricity; entitlement of 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty; provisioning for out door games, indoor games, newspapers, magazines and other periodicals of interest relating to fire service; and risk allowance, are available to the members of the Fire Brigade. The afore-noted benefits are not admissible to other employees who are working in other Municipal Services. The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984 96. The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984 (for short, 'the Safai Karamchari Rules') are applicable to the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, working in the Municipalities in the State of Punjab. 97. Under Rule 9 of the Safai Karamchari Rules, the inter se seniority of the members of the Service has to be determined cadre-wise, in the manner as provided in the said rule. Therefore, there can't be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply. 98. Rule 16 of the Safai Karamchari Rules prescribes that leave shall be admissible to said employees in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab CSR. 99. Therefore, there can't be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply. 98. Rule 16 of the Safai Karamchari Rules prescribes that leave shall be admissible to said employees in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab CSR. 99. Rule 17 of the Safai Karamchari Rules deals with the 'Holidays' admissible to each member of this Service, and stipules that they shall have - (a) a paid holiday once a week, (b) three National Holidays, namely, 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October, and (c) four other holidays at the option of the member on any of the festivals specified in Appendix 'C' attached with the Safai Karamchari Rules. 100. Rule 20 of the Safai Karamchari Rules prescribes for supply of uniform to the members of the Service, free of cost. Other than this, they shall also be entitled to washing allowance at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. 101. Rule 23 of the Safai Karamchari Rules relates to 'Weekly working hours' and provides that no member shall be required to work for more than eight hours on any day, and work shall be taken in two sessions, namely, in the morning and in the evening. Working hours shall be fixed by the Executive Officer for summer and winter. 102. Rule 26 of the Safai Karamchari Rules makes the provision of allotting a residential house to a member, if available, on monthly rent of ten percent of his emoluments or in lieu thereof House Rent Allowance shall have to be paid to him as per norms fixed by the Punjab Government for its employees. 103. Rules 27 and 28 of the Safai Karamchari Rules relate to over-riding effect and interpretation, which are to the effect that 'the provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein so far as the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in other rules with respect to such matters', and 'if any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same'. 104. For ready reference, Rule 9, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28 and Appendix 'C' of the Safai Karamchari Rules, are reproduced as under:- "9. 104. For ready reference, Rule 9, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28 and Appendix 'C' of the Safai Karamchari Rules, are reproduced as under:- "9. Seniority of members of Service.- The seniority inter se of the members in each cadre, shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may from time to time be extended by the appointing authority subject to a maximum of one month from the date of order of appointment, the order of merit determined shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of one month, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in the case any candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso. Note.- This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on provisional basis, and their seniority shall be determined as soon as they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of their regular appointment. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 16. Leave.- Leave shall be admissible to the members in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. 17. Holidays. - (1) Each member shall have - (a) a paid holiday once a week; (b) three National Holidays, namely:- (1) 26th January; (2) 15th August; and (3) 2nd October; (c) four other holidays at the option of the member on any of the festivals specified in Appendix 'C'. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 20. Uniforms. - (1) The members shall be entitled to supply of uniform free of cost. (2) The members shall also be entitled to washing allowance at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 23. Weekly working hours. Uniforms. - (1) The members shall be entitled to supply of uniform free of cost. (2) The members shall also be entitled to washing allowance at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 23. Weekly working hours. - (1) No member shall be required to work for more than eight hours on any day. (2) The work shall be taken in two sessions, namely, in the morning and in the evening. The working hours shall be fixed by the Executive officer for summer and winter. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 26. Residential accommodation. - A member may be allotted a residential house, if available, on monthly rent of ten per cent of his emoluments or in lieu thereof House Rent Allowance shall be paid to him as per norms fixed by the Punjab Government for its employees. 27. Over-riding effect. - The provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein in so far as the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in other rules with respect to such matter. 28. Interpretation. - If any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same." The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 105. 28. Interpretation. - If any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same." The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 105. The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Punjab Municipal Services Rules'), deals with the recruitment and other conditions of service of following Municipal Services, as contained in Appendix 'A' attached with these rules:- Serial No. Name of Service 1 Punjab Municipal Service of Executive Officers 2 Punjab Municipal Service of Secretaries 3 Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Secretaries 4 Punjab Municipal Service of Medical Officers of Health 4-A Punjab Municipal Service of Superintending Engineers (Civil) 5 Punjab Municipal Service of Engineers 6 Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Municipal Engineers 7 Punjab Municipal Service of Town Planners 8 Punjab Municipal Services of Assistant Town Planners 9 Punjab Municipal Service of Planning Assistants 10 Punjab Municipal Service of Architects 11 Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Architects 12 Punjab Municipal Service of Law Officers 13 Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Divisional Fire Officers 14 Punjab Municipal Service of Legal Assistants 15 Punjab Municipal Service of Fire Station Officers 16 Punjab Municipal Service of Architectural Assistants 17 Punjab Municipal Service of Superintendents 18 Punjab Municipal Service of Head Draftsmen 19 Punjab Municipal Service of Accountants 20 Punjab Municipal Service of Draftsman 21 Punjab Municipal Service of Sectional Officers 22 Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Superintendents 23 Punjab Municipal Service of Assistants/ Inspectors/ Head Clerks 24 Punjab Municipal Service of Stenographers 25 Punjab Municipal Service of Chief Sanitary Inspectors 26 Punjab Municipal Service of Sanitary Inspectors 106. Rule 11 of the Punjab Municipal Services Rules deals with the Seniority of Members of Service and prescribes that the seniority inter se of the members of a Service shall be determined separately, for every category within a Service. 107. Rule 15 of the Punjab Municipal Services Rules deals with leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees, honoraris, house rent allowance, dearness allowances, fixation of pay, grant of increment etc. and specifically provides that the members of the Services shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules applicable to Punjab Government employees. 108. For ready reference, Rule 11 and 15 of the Punjab Municipal Services Rules are reproduced as under:- "11. Seniority of Members of Service. and specifically provides that the members of the Services shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules applicable to Punjab Government employees. 108. For ready reference, Rule 11 and 15 of the Punjab Municipal Services Rules are reproduced as under:- "11. Seniority of Members of Service. - The seniority inter se of the members of a Service shall be determined separately, for every category within a Service from the dates of their continuous appointment to a post in the said category: Provided that in the case of members appointed by direct recruitment their in-terse seniority shall be in the order of merit in which they have been placed by the Selection Committee: Provided further that in the case of two or more members appointed on the same date, a member appointed by direct recruitment shall be senior to a member appointed otherwise. Note.- This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on purely provisional basis. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. Leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees and honouraris and other matters. -- In respect of leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees, honoraris, house rent allowance, dearness allowances, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, deputation and other matters not expressly provided in these rules, members shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules applicable to Punjab Government employees. The authority competent to sanction casual leave, earned leave, increment, efficiency bar will be as indicated against each category of service in appendix 'D': Provided that a person on transfer shall draw his travelling allowance and joining time benefit from the Municipal Committee to which he is transferred." Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of Punjab Roadways 109. Categories of employees working in the Punjab Roadways, are governed under different rules. Some of the rules, to which this Court has been able to lay its hands, are discussed in the upcoming paras of the judgment. 110. Other than this, the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as, 'the Transport Workers Act') is also applicable to the employees of the Punjab Roadways. The Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules 1963 111. 110. Other than this, the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as, 'the Transport Workers Act') is also applicable to the employees of the Punjab Roadways. The Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules 1963 111. The Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1963, were notified in the Punjab Government Gazette on 03.07.1963, and the same were applied to persons appointed to the posts specified in Appendix 'A' to these rules, which includes the posts of Superintendent, P.T.C's Office, Punjab, Investigation Officer, Head Assistant, Assistant Secretary, Assistant, Stenographer, Reader, Transport Sub-Inspector, Steno-typist, Clerks, Restorer, Senior Auditor, Senior Accountant, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Draftsman, Mechanic, Fitter, Upholstrer, Blacksmith, Painter, Electrician, Store-keeper, Drivers (attached to M.C. Garrage), and Motor Mechanic Driver. Under these rules, various conditions of service of such employees have been mentioned. 112. Rule 10 of these rules provides the manner in which inter se seniority of the members of Service shall be determined. 113. Under Rule 11 of these rules, the members of the Service were held entitled to such scales of pay including special pay, if any, as may be authorised by Government from time to time. And, under Rule 12, every member of the Service could be transferred to any other office or department of the State. Rule 13 of these rules deals with leave, pension and other matters and it is provided that in respect of leave, pension and other cognate matters not expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may subsequently be adopted or framed by the competent authority. 114. For ready reference, the provisions of Rule 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1963, are reproduced as under:- "10. 114. For ready reference, the provisions of Rule 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1963, are reproduced as under:- "10. The seniority inter-se of members of Service shall be determined by the date of their continuous appointments in the Service: Provided that in the case of members appointed directly, the order of merit determined by the Commission or the Board shall not be disturbed and persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection: Provided further that in case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; b) a member recruited by promotion shall be senior to a person recruited by transfer; c) in the case of members recruited by promotion or transfer seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and d) in the case of members recruited by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member, who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same then by their length of service in those appointments; and if the length of such service is the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Note.- (1) This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on purely provisional basis pending their passing the qualifying test. Note.- (2) In the case of members whose period of probation is extended under rule 9 of these rules, the date of appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be deemed to have been deferred to the extent the period of probation is extended. 11. Members of the Service shall be entitled to such scales of pay including special pay, if any, as may be authorised by Government from time to time. The scales of pay at present in force in respect of specified posts are given in Appendix 'A' to these rules. 12. 11. Members of the Service shall be entitled to such scales of pay including special pay, if any, as may be authorised by Government from time to time. The scales of pay at present in force in respect of specified posts are given in Appendix 'A' to these rules. 12. Every member of Service shall be liable to transfer under the orders of - (a) the Government, to any other office or department of the State; (b) the appointing authority, within the State of Punjab or any other place in India where he may be required to proceed under the administrative control of the Punjab Government in the Service of which he is a member. 13. In respect of leave, pension and other cognate matters not expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may hereafter be adopted or framed by the competent authority under the Constitution of India or any law or rules made thereunder. Provided that in the case of members of the Service who were employees of erstwhile State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, leave, pension and other cognate matters shall, unless Punjab rules are made applicable to them with their consent or in accordance with law, be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to them immediately before the 1st November, 1956. The Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules 1977 115. The Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules 1977, were notified in the Punjab Government Gazette on 02.06.1977, and the same were applied to workshop staff holding posts in the Punjab Roadways, as specified in Appendix 'A' to these rules, which includes the posts of Service Station Incharge, Head Mechanic or Tyreman, Head Electrician, Mechanic, Instrument Mechanic, Boarer, Machinist, Calibrator Nozzle Grinder, Fitter, Welder, Blacksmith, Tyreman (tube repairer), Tinsmith, Turner, Carpenter, Upholster, Electrician, Painter, Radiator Repairer, Battery Attendant, Valcaniser, Assistant Painter, Assistant Fitter, Assistant Electrician, Assistant Carpenter, Assistant Battery Attendant, Assistant Blacksmith, Assistant Welder, Assistant Radiator Repairer, Assistant Upholster, Assistant Turner and Assistant Tyreman. Under these rules, various conditions of service of such employees have been mentioned. 116. Under these rules, various conditions of service of such employees have been mentioned. 116. For removal of doubts, it is clearly provided under Rule 1(4) of these rules that nothing in these rules shall apply to the persons to whom the Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1963, apply. Like the provisions contained in the aforementioned 1963 Rules, similar provisions regarding seniority, liability to transfer and leave, pay and other matters, have been contained under Rule 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the 1977 Rules, which are reproduced as under:- "11. The seniority inter se of members of the Service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, the order of merit determined by the Commission or the Board or other recruiting authority, as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority: Provided further that in case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; c) in the case of members recruited by promotion or transfer their seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and d) in the case of members recruited by transfer from different cadres their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member, who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then by their length of service in those appointments; and if the length of such service is the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Note.- Seniority of members appointed on purely provisional basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. 12. A member of the Service may be transferred by the Government to any post, whether included in any other service or not, on the same terms and conditions as are specified in rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. 13. 12. A member of the Service may be transferred by the Government to any post, whether included in any other service or not, on the same terms and conditions as are specified in rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. 13. A member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the Appointing Authority. 14. In respect of pay, leave and all other matters not expressly provided for in these rules, the members of Service shall be governed by such laws, rules and regulations as may have been or may hereafter be adopted or made by the competent authority." The Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977 117. The Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977, were also notified alongwith similar rules which are applicable to the workshop staff (as referred above), but by a separate notification. These rules contain the same provisions, and the only difference is that these were made applicable to the posts of Station Supervisor Grade-I, Welfare Inspector or Chief Inspector, Station Supervisor Grade-II, Inspector, Yard Master, Driver, Booking Clerk, Station Wagon/Staff Car driver, Conductor and Adda Conductor. Therefore, the provisions of these rules are not being extracted herein. The Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977 118. The Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977, were also notified alongwith similar rules which are applicable to the Workshop Staff and Operational Staff (as referred above), but by a separate notification. These rules also contain the same provisions, and the only difference is that these were made applicable to the posts of Superintendent, Legal Assistant, Assistant, Stenographer, Steno-typist, Preventive Maintenance Assistant, Clerk, Tracer, Diesel Pump Attendant, Restorer, Accounts Staff i.e. Resident Senior Auditor, Resident Senior, Accountant, Junior Auditor, Cashier, Assistant Cashier, Assistant Accountant and Ledger Keeper; and Stores Staff i.e. Chief Store-keeper, Store Purchase Assistant, Store-keeper and Assistant Storekeeper. Therefore, the provisions of these rules are not being extracted herein. 119. Therefore, the provisions of these rules are not being extracted herein. 119. It is apt to notice here that vide subsequent notifications issued from time to time, the rules applicable to the Workshop Staff, Operational Staff and Ministerial Staff of the Punjab Roadways, which have been referred above, were amended, and Rule 21-A was inserted therein, whereby the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, were made applicable to the Operational Staff. Other than this, Appendix 'A' appended to the rules applicable to Operational Staff was also substituted, by mentioning therein the posts of Station Supervisor Grade-I, Yard Master, Inspector, Bus Driver, Staff Car Driver, Conductor and Ticket Verifier only. 120. Rule 21-A, which was inserted in the said rules, reads as under:- "21-A.- Application of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.- In respect of the matters, which are not specifically provided in these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, as contained in Appendix 'D' to these rules." The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 121. Perusal of the 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' of the Transport Workers Act reveals that despite existence of certain enactments like the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Factories Act, 1948, which cover certain sections of motor transport workers and certain aspects of their conditions of employment, there was, however, no independent legislation applicable to motor transport workers as a whole or for regulating the various aspects of their conditions of employment work and wages. Thus, it was considered desirable to have a separate legislative measure for motor transport workers which would cover matters like medical facilities, welfare facilities, hours of work spread-over, rest periods, overtime, annual leave with pay, etc., on the analogy of similar enactments for workers in factories, mines and plantations. Accordingly, the Transport Workers Act came into being by Act of 1961 w.e.f. 20.05.1961. 122. As per Section 1(4) of the Transport Workers Act, it applies to every motor transport undertaking, employing five or more motor transport workers. 123. Chapter IV and Chapter V of the Transport Workers Act contain the provisions for Welfare and Health (Sections 8 to 12), and Hours and Limitations of Employment (Sections 13 to 20), respectively. 122. As per Section 1(4) of the Transport Workers Act, it applies to every motor transport undertaking, employing five or more motor transport workers. 123. Chapter IV and Chapter V of the Transport Workers Act contain the provisions for Welfare and Health (Sections 8 to 12), and Hours and Limitations of Employment (Sections 13 to 20), respectively. While under Chaper VII, provisions under the heading Wages and Leave (Sections 25 to 28) have been incorporated in respect of the motor transport workers. 124. For ready reference, the aforementioned provisions of the Transport Workers Act, as contained in Chapters IV, V and VII, are reproduced as under:- "Chapter IV Welfare And Health 8. Canteens.-- (1) The State Government may make rules requiring that in every place wherein one hundred motor transport workers or more employed in a motor transport undertaking ordinarily call on duty during every day, one or more canteens shall be provided and maintained by the employer for the use of the motor transport workers. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for -- (a) the date by which the canteens shall be provided; (b) the number of canteens that shall be provided and the standards in respect of construction, accommodation, furniture and other equipment of the canteens; (c) the foodstuffs which may be served therein and the charges which may be made therefor; (d) the constitution of a managing committee for a canteen and the representation of the motor transport workers in the management of the canteen. (3) The State Government may, subject to such conditions as it may impose, delegate to the chief inspector the power to make rules with reference to clause (c) subsection (2). 9. Rest rooms- (1) In every place wherein motor transport workers employed in a motor transport undertaking are required to halt at night, there shall be provided and maintained the employer for the use of those motor transport workers such number of rest rooms or such other suitable alternative accommodation, as may be prescribed. (2) The rest rooms or the alternative accommodation to be provided under sub-section (1) shall be sufficiently lighted and ventilated and shall be maintained in a clean and comfortable condition. (3) The State Government may prescribe the standards in respect of construction, accommodation, furniture and other equipment of rest rooms or the alternative accommodation to be provided under this section. (2) The rest rooms or the alternative accommodation to be provided under sub-section (1) shall be sufficiently lighted and ventilated and shall be maintained in a clean and comfortable condition. (3) The State Government may prescribe the standards in respect of construction, accommodation, furniture and other equipment of rest rooms or the alternative accommodation to be provided under this section. 10. Uniforms- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules requiring an employer of a motor transport undertaking to provide for the drivers, conductors and line checking staff employed in that undertaking such number and type of uniforms, raincoats or other like amenities for their protection from rain or cold as may be specified in the rules. (2) There shall be paid to the drivers, conductors and line checking staff by the employer an allowance for washing of uniforms provided under sub-section (1) at such rates as may be prescribed; Provided that no such allowance shall be payable by an employer who has made at his own cost adequate arrangements for the washing of uniforms. 11. Medical facilities- These shall be provided and maintained by the employer so as to be readily available such medical facilities for the motor transport workers at such operating centers and halting stations as may be prescribed by the State government. 12. First-aid facilities- (1) These shall be provided and maintained by the employer so as to be readily accessible during all working hours a first-aid box equipped with the prescribed contents in every transport vehicle. (2) Nothing except the prescribed contents shall be kept in a first-aid box. (3) The first-aid box shall be kept in the charge of the driver or the conductor of the transport vehicle who shall be provided facilities for training in the use thereof. Chapter V Hours And Limitation of Emplotmeny 13. (2) Nothing except the prescribed contents shall be kept in a first-aid box. (3) The first-aid box shall be kept in the charge of the driver or the conductor of the transport vehicle who shall be provided facilities for training in the use thereof. Chapter V Hours And Limitation of Emplotmeny 13. Hours of work for adult motor transport workers-- No adult motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in any day and forty-eight hours in any week: Provided that where any such motor transport worker is engaged in the running of any motor transport service on such long distance routes, or on such festive and other occasions as may be notified in the prescribed manner by the prescribed authority, the employer may, with the approval of such authority, require or allow such motor transport worker to work for more than eight hours in any day or forty-eight hours in any week but in no case for more than ten hours in a day and fifty-four in hours in a week, as the case may be: Provided further that in the case of a breakdown or dislocation of a motor transport service or interruption of traffic or act of God, the employer may, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, require or allow any such motor transport worker to work for more than eight hours in any day or more than forty-eight hours in any week. 14. Hours of work for adolescents employed as motor transport workers.-- No adolescent shall be employed or required to work as a motor transport worker in any motor transport undertaking- (a) for more than six hours a day including rest interval of half-an-hour; (b) between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6 A.M. 15. Daily intervals for rest.- (1) The hours of work in relation to adult motor transport workers on each day shall be so fixed that no period of work shall exceed five hours and that no such motor transport worker shall work for more than five hours before he has had on interval for rest for at least half-an hour; Provided that the provisions of this sub-section in so far as they relate to interval for rest shall not apply to a motor transport worker who is not required to work for more than six hours on that day. (2) The hours of work on each day shall be so fixed that a motor transport worker is, except in any case referred to in the second provision to section 13, allowed a period of rest of at least nine consecutive hours between the termination of duty on any one day and the commencement of duty on the next following day. 16. Spread-over.- (1) The hours of work of an adult motor transport worker shall, except in any case referred to in the second provision to section 13 be so arranged that inclusive of interval for rest under section 15, they shall not spread-over more than twelve hours in any day. (2) The hours of work of an adolescent motor transport worker shall be so arranged that inclusive of interval for rest under section 14, they shall not spread-over more than nine hours in any day. 17. Split duty.- Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the hours of work of a motor transport worker shall not be split into more than two spells on any day. 18. Notice of hours of work.-- (1) There shall be displayed and correctly maintained by every employer a notice of hours of work in such form and manner as may be prescribed showing clearly for every day the hours during which motor transport workers may be required to work. (2) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, no such motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work otherwise than in accordance with the notice of hours of work so displayed. 19. Weekly rest.-- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules providing for a day of rest in every period of seven days, which shall be allowed to all motor transport workers. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), an employer may, in order to prevent any dislocation of a motor transport service, require a motor transport worker to work on any day of rest which is not a holiday so, however, that the motor transport worker does not work for more than ten days consecutively without a holiday for a whole day intervening. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any motor transport worker whose total period of employment including any day spent on leave is less than six day. 20. Compensatory day of rest. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any motor transport worker whose total period of employment including any day spent on leave is less than six day. 20. Compensatory day of rest. -- Where, as a result of any exemption granted to an employer under the provisions of this Act from the operation of section 19, a motor transport worker is deprived of any of the days of rest to which he is entitled under that section, the motor transport worker shall be allowed within the month in which the days of rest are due to him or within two months immediately following that month, compensatory days of rest of equal number to the days of rest so lost. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Chapter VII Wages And Leave 25. Act 4 of 1936 to apply to payment of wages to motor transport workers.-- The payment of Wages Act, 1936, as in force for the time being, shall apply to motor transport workers engaged in a motor transport undertaking as it applies to wages payable in an industrial establishment as if the said Act had been extended to the payment of wages of such motor transport workers by a notification of the State Government under sub-section (5) of section I thereof, and as if a motor transport undertaking were and industrial establishment within the meaning of the said Act. 26. Extra wages for overtime.-- (1) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the first provision to section 13 or where he is required to work on any day of rest under sub-section (2) of section 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the overtime work or the work done on the day of rest, as the case may be. (2) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the second proviso to section 13, he shall be entitled to wages in respect of the overtime work at such rates as may be prescribed. (2) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the second proviso to section 13, he shall be entitled to wages in respect of the overtime work at such rates as may be prescribed. (3) Where an adolescent motor transport worker is required to work on any day of rest under subsection (2) of sub-section 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the work done on the day of rest. (4) For the purposes of this section, "ordinary rate of wages" in relation to a motor transport worker means his basic wages plus dearness allowance. 27. Annual leave with wages.-- (1) Without prejudice to such holidays as may be prescribed, every motor transport worker who has worked for a period of two hundred and forty days or more in a motor transport undertaking during a calendar year shall be allowed during the subsequent calendar year leave with wages for a number of days calculated at the rate of - (a) if an adult, one day for every twenty days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year; and (b) if an adolescent, one day for every fifteen days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year. (2) A motor transport worker whose service commences otherwise than on the first day of January shall be entitled to leave with wages at the rate laid down in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) if he has worked for two-thirds of the total number of days in the remainder of the calendar year. (3) If a motor transport worker is discharged or dismissed from service during the course of the year, he shall be entitled to leave with wages at the rate laid down in subsection (1), even if he has not worked for the entire period specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), entitling him to earned leave. (4) In calculating leave under this section, fraction of leave of half a day or more shall be treated as one full day's leave, and fraction of less than half a day shall be omitted. (4) In calculating leave under this section, fraction of leave of half a day or more shall be treated as one full day's leave, and fraction of less than half a day shall be omitted. (5) If a motor transport worker does not in any one calendar year take the whole of the leave allowed to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, any leave not taken by him shall be added to the leave to be allowed to him in the succeeding calendar year: Provided that the total number of days of leave that may be carried forward to a succeeding year shall not exceed thirty in the case of an adult or forty in the case of an adolescent. (6) In this section "calendar year" means the year commencing on the first day of January. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, leave shall not include weekly holidays or holidays for festival or other similar occasions whether occurring during or at either end of the period of leave. 28. Wages during leave period.-- (1) For the leave allowed to a motor transport worker under section 27, he shall be paid at the rate equal to the daily average of his total full time wages for the days on which he worked during the moth immediately preceding his leave, exclusive of any overtime earnings and bonus, if any, but inclusive of dearness allowance and the cash equivalent of the advantage, if any, accruing by the concessional supply by the employer of food grains for the day on which he worked. (2) A motor transport worker who has been allowed leave for not less than four days under section 27 shall, on an application made by him in this behalf to the employer, be paid in advance, before his leave begins, an approximate amount equivalent to the wages payable to him for the period of his leave and any amount so paid shall be adjusted against the wages due to him for the aforesaid period of leave. (3) If a motor transport worker is not granted leave to which he is entitled under sub-section (3) of section 27, he shall be paid wages in lieu thereof at the rate specified in sub-section (1)." 125. (3) If a motor transport worker is not granted leave to which he is entitled under sub-section (3) of section 27, he shall be paid wages in lieu thereof at the rate specified in sub-section (1)." 125. A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions of the Transport Workers Act makes it clear that as per Chapter-IV the State Government and/or Transport Undertakings/employer are duty bound to make adequate measures for the welfare and health of such motor transport workers such as canteens, rest rooms, uniforms, medical facilities and first-aid-facilities. 126. Further, the provisions of Sections 13 to 20 under Chapter V, contemplate fixed hours of work, split of duty, weekly rest as well as compensatory day of rest. 127. Not only this, under Chapter VII, specific provisions for payment of extra wages for overtime, grant of annual leave with wages, payment of wages during leave period have been prescribed, in favour of the motor transport workers. Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) 128. Class III and IV (now group 'C' and 'D') employees of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) are governed by the regulations called as 'the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (Conditions of appointment and Service Regulation) 1981 (for short, 'the PRTC Regulations'), which came into force on 16.01.1981 and subsequently amended from time to time. Posts of the employees of the PRTC have been specified in Appendix 'A' appended to the PRTC Regulations. Relevant extract of Appendix 'A' is reproduced as under:- Appendix - A Sr. No. Designation 1 Section Officer 2 Junior Engineer 3 Superintendent 4 Senior Assistant 5 Mechanical Draftsman 6 Store Keeper 7 Sr. Scale Stenographer 8 Jr. Scale Stenographer 9 Steno-typist 10 Cashier 11 Clerk 12 Asstt. Cashier 13 A.S.K. 14 Dispenser 15 T.S.V.C. 16 D.P.C. 17 Station Supervisor 18 Chief Inspector 19 Welfare Inspector 20 Inspector 21 Yard Master 22 (i) Contract basis Driver Category II 22 (ii) Contract basis Driver Category I. 22 (iii) Driver Regular. Scale Stenographer 8 Jr. Scale Stenographer 9 Steno-typist 10 Cashier 11 Clerk 12 Asstt. Cashier 13 A.S.K. 14 Dispenser 15 T.S.V.C. 16 D.P.C. 17 Station Supervisor 18 Chief Inspector 19 Welfare Inspector 20 Inspector 21 Yard Master 22 (i) Contract basis Driver Category II 22 (ii) Contract basis Driver Category I. 22 (iii) Driver Regular. 23 Staff Car Driver 24 Sub Inspector 25(i) Contract basis Conductor Category II 25(ii) Contract basis Conductor Category I 25(iii) Conductor Regular 26 S.S.I. (Tyres) 27 (i) Contract basis SSI Category II (ii) Contract basis SSI Category I (iii) SSI Regular 28 Head Mechanic Tyres 29 (i) Contract basis Head Mechanic Category II (ii) Contract basis Head Mechanic Category I (iii) Head Mechanic Regular 30 Head Electrician 31 Head Carpenter 32 Head Carpenter of Body Fabrication Cell 33 Head Blacksmith 34 Blacksmith Body Fabrication Cell 35 and 36 (i) Contract basis Machinist, Mechanic Category II (ii) Contract basis Machinist, Mechanic Category I (iii) Machinist, Mechanic Regular 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 (i) Contract basis Fitter, Tyreman, Welder, Carpenter, Upholster, Painter, Blacksmith, Borer, Electrician, Radiator Repairer, Turner, Vulcanizer, Battery Attendant and Asstt. Tyreman Category II (ii) Contract basis above categories Category-I (iii) Above categories on Regular basis 51 Asstt. Fitter 52 (i) Contract basis Helper Category-II 52 (ii) Contract basis Helpers Category-I 52 (iii) Helper Regular. 53 Cleaner 54 Sweeper 55 Chowkidar 56 Daftri 57 Record lifter 58 Peon 59 Store Boy 60 Gate Keeper 61 Mali 62 Gunman 63 Ward Attendant 129. As per Regulation 3(i) of the PRTC Regulations all the employees of the PRTC are required to perform such duties and carry out such functions as may be entrusted to them by the Corporation or the Managing Director or the officer authorized by the Corporation. The employees may be asked to carry out only such duties as they are ordinarily required to perform and the same are mentioned in their appointment letters. 130. Under Regulation 3(iii) it is specifically provided that an employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transport Workers Act. 130. Under Regulation 3(iii) it is specifically provided that an employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transport Workers Act. Meaning thereby, various provisions and benefits enshrined under the Transport Workers Act, which have already been reproduced and discussed in the foregoing paras while referring the provisions applicable to the employees of the Punjab Roadways, are also applicable to the employees of the PRTC. 131. Under Regulation 4(a) of the PRTC Regulations, the Class III employees are classified into three categories, namely, (i) Ministerial Staff, (ii) Operation Staff, and (iii) Workshop Staff, whereas under Regulation 4(b), Class IV employees have been classified into two categories, namely, (i) Ministerial Staff and (ii) Workshop Staff. 132. From a bare reading of aforementioned classification of Class III and Class IV into sub-categories, one thing is clear that the posts mentioned in such sub-categories are distinct from each other and such classification has been made keeping in mind the nature of duties being performed by ministerial staff, operation staff and workshop staff. For example, Class IV employees holding the posts of Daftri, Record lifter, Mali, Gunman, Chowkidar, Gate Keeper, Ward Attendant, Store Boy and Peon have been kept under the category of 'Ministerial Staff', whereas Helper, Cleaner and Sweeper are kept under the category of 'Workshop Staff'. In similar manner, classification of Class III employees has been made. 133. Regulation 12 of the PRTC Regulations entails the manner for determination of inter se seniority of the members of service in each cadre. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service or under same classification is different, then their separate seniority shall have been fixed cadre-wise. 134. Regulation 19 of the PRTC Regulations talks about 'Transfers' and under sub-regulation (i) thereof it is provided that all employees are liable to be transferred to any station in the jurisdiction of the Corporation by the Competent Authority or Managing Director. Further, under Regulation 19(ii), General Manager will be competent for the transfer of the staff to any place in the jurisdiction of his Depot. 135. However, Regulation 19 nowhere provide for transfer of the employees inter-se their category/classification provided under Regulation 4, e.g. from Ministerial Staff to Operation Staff or vice-versa. 136. Further, under Regulation 19(ii), General Manager will be competent for the transfer of the staff to any place in the jurisdiction of his Depot. 135. However, Regulation 19 nowhere provide for transfer of the employees inter-se their category/classification provided under Regulation 4, e.g. from Ministerial Staff to Operation Staff or vice-versa. 136. Provisions of Regulations 36 to 40, contained in Part-IV of the PRTC Regulations are almost pari materia to the provisions of Chapter V of the Transport Workers Act, which have already been extracted and discussed while mentioning the Act and Rules pertaining to the employees of the Punjab Roadways. 137. As already noticed above, by virtue of Regulation 3(iii) of the PRTC Regulations, all the provisions of the Transport Workers Act are also applicable to the motor transport workers of the PRTC. 138. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the relevant provisions of the PRTC Regulations are reproduced as under:- "3. Duties of the employees (i) All the employees of the Corporation shall perform such duties and carry out such functions and exercise such powers as may be entrusted to them by the Corporation or the Managing Director or the officer authorized by the Corporation. The employees may be asked to carry out only such duties as they are ordinarily required to perform and the same are mentioned in their appointment letters. (ii) No employee shall directly or indirectly engage in any other business, occupation or employment nor shall he accept any fees, emoluments or commission whatsoever from any person other than the Corporation without prior permission of the Corporation. (iii) An employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in Motor Transport Workers Act. 4. Classification of employees. (1) For the purpose of these regulations the employees shall be classified as under:- (a) Class III. (i) Ministerial Staff:- Personal Assistant, Superintendent Grade-II, Assistant, Senior Scale Stenographer, Junior Scale Stenographer, Steno-typist, Cashier, Clerk, Assistant Cashier, Assistant Store Keeper, Ticket Stock Verifier Clerk, Dispenser, Diesel Pump Clerk, Sectional officer (Civil), Mechanical Draftsman, Section Officer, Store Keeper, Draftsman (Civil), Sectional Officer (Electric). (ii) Operation Staff: Station Supervisor, Chief Inspector, Welfare-Inspector, Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Yard Master, Driver, Staff Car Driver, Conductor. (ii) Operation Staff: Station Supervisor, Chief Inspector, Welfare-Inspector, Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Yard Master, Driver, Staff Car Driver, Conductor. (iii) Workshop Staff Service Station Incharge (Mechanical), Service Station Incharge (Tyres), Head Mechanic, Head Electrician, Head-Blacksmith, Head Carpenter, Machinist, Mechanic, Fitter, Tyreman, Borer, Welder, Blacksmith, Assistant Tyreman, Carpenter, upholster, Electrician, Painter, Radiator Repairer, Turner, Vulcanisor, Battery Attendant, Assistant Fitter, Head Mechanic (Crankshaft), Assistant Electrician, Assistant Carpenter, Assistant Blacksmith, Assistant Welder, Assistant Radiator Repairer, Assistant Upholster, Assistant Battery Attendant, Assistant painter, Assistant Turner, Service Station Inchcarge(Diploma Holder), Head Carpenter (Body Fabrication Cell), Head Blacksmith, (Body Fabrication Cell). (b) Class IV Comprising of Ministerial and Workshop Employees enumerated below:- i) Ministerial Staff: Daftri, Record lifter, Mali, Gunman, Chowkidar, Gate Keeper, Ward Attendant, Store Boy, Peon. ii) Workshop Staff: Helper, Cleaner, Sweeper. 2) The scale of pay of each post will be determined per regulation 14. This is subject to upward revision as and when necessary. 3) When a new post is created, it shall be suitably classified by the Corporation. 4) The condition of service of an employee on deputation shall be such as may be laid down by the Corporation with the approval of the Government. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 12. Seniority :- The seniority interse of members of service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the service : Provided that in case of members recruited by direct appointment the order of merit determined by the Commission of the board may be, or other recruiting authority as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority and persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection; Provided further that in the case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise. b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer. b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer. c) In the case of members recruited by promotion or transfer seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which promoted or transferred; and d) In the case of members recruited by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawing higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then by their length of service, those appointments; and if the length of service is also the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Note :- Seniority of members appointed on purely provisional basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the Date of such regular appointment. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. Transfers: i) All employees are liable to be transferred to any station in the jurisdiction of the Corporation by the Competent Authority or Managing Director. A fifteen days notice shall be given to the employees affected by this transfer except in cases where because of exigencies of work such notice cannot be served. Ordinarily joining time shall be allowed to the employee under orders of transfer except when it is a local transfer or when transfer ordered in special circumstances. ii) The General Manager will be competent for the transfer of the staff to any place in the jurisdiction of his Depot. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Part IV 36. Working Hours : Holidays and Leaves : Hours of Work: The daily and weekly hours of work in case of workshop staff shall be as prescribed in the factories Act 1948, and in the case of the staff other than the workshop and direction staff, the same shall be as prescribed in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. As regards the direction staff, pattern of Punjab Roadways will be followed. 37. Overtime Allowance The overtime allowance shall be paid to the workshop and the operation staff in accordance with provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, as the case may be. 38. As regards the direction staff, pattern of Punjab Roadways will be followed. 37. Overtime Allowance The overtime allowance shall be paid to the workshop and the operation staff in accordance with provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, as the case may be. 38. Notice of Hours of Work : Notice regarding hours of work for every class and group of employees in the Corporation shall be displayed on Notice Boards maintained for the purpose in the Corporation. 39. Notice of Holidays & Pay : Notice specifying the : a) Weekly holidays. b) Date on which compensatory holidays, if any and . c) Date on, which wages are to be paid. shall be displayed on the notice boards at suitable place. 40. Shift Working : In the workshop, every class or group of any part thereof may work for more than one shift at the discretion of the Managing Director/ General Manager. If more than one shift is worked, the employees shall be liable to be transferred from one shift to another. No shift working shall be discontinued without one month's notice being given prior to such discontinuance, of the shift to permanent employees is discharged. If as a result of the discontinuance of shift working, any permanent employee is to become surplus, an attempt will be made to absorb him in other services of the Corporation. If, however, any of them cannot be absorbed and is to be dispensed with, he will be discharged having regard to the length of his satisfactory service, that with lesser service shall be discharged first. If shift working restarted, a week's notice thereof shall be given by pasting a notice at the main entrance to the service and the employee so discharged shall on the restarting of the shift be given preference for re-employment, regard being had to the length of their previous service, those with the longest shall be reemployed first. Operational and supervisory staff shall be regulated by the provisions of the Motor Transport Worker Act and the Rules made thereunder." Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board 139. Operational and supervisory staff shall be regulated by the provisions of the Motor Transport Worker Act and the Rules made thereunder." Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board 139. In pursuance of the powers conferred by sub-section (2)(b) and (c) of Section 72 read with Section 12 of the Punjab Water supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1976, the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board with the previous sanction of the Government, framed the Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Services) Regulations, 1981 (hereafter referred to as 'the 1981 Regulations', for all the whole-time regular employees only. Various categories of Services are contained in Appendix 'B' of the 1981 Regulations. Relevant extract of Appendix 'B' of the 1981 Regulations, so far it pertains to Class-III and Class-IV Services, is reproduced as under:- " Appendix 'B' Class-III Sr. No. Designation of Post 1. Senior Auditor 2. P.A. to M.D. 3. Superintendent Gr.-II 4. Superintendent Gr.-IV 5. Assistant/Accounts Clerks 6. Stenographer 7. Steno-Typist 8. S.D.C's / Senior Clerks 9. Clerks 10. Telephone Operator 11. Electrician 12. Head Draftsman Grade-I 13. Head Draftsman Grade-II 14. Assistant Draftsman 15. Tracer 16. Junior Engineer (Civil & Mech.) 17. Surveyor 18. Car-Driver 19. Duplicating Operator Class-IV 20. Daftri 21. Jamadar Peon 22. Peon 23. Sweeper 24. Chowkidar 25. Ferro Khalasi" 140. As per Regulation 2.13 of the 1981, the appointing authority for various posts is competent to order transfer of all employees/officers within their sphere of jurisdiction and control, and the Managing Director is competent to order transfer of employees/officers from one circle to other circle and from field offices to the Head Office and vice versa. 141. First proviso under Regulation 3.2 of the 1981 Regulations provides that 'where there are different cadres in a service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre'. 142. Under Regulations 9.1 and 9.2 of the 1981 Regulations, it is provided that the employees of the Board, in the matters of leave, joining time fee, suspension, honorarium, dearness allowance, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, liveries and other Cognate matters, to which regulations are not made, shall be governed by the Punjab CSR, framed by the State of Punjab. 143. For ready reference, relevant provisions of the 1981 Regulations are reproduced as under:- "2.13. 143. For ready reference, relevant provisions of the 1981 Regulations are reproduced as under:- "2.13. The appointing authority for various posts included in the service shall be competent to order transfer of all employees / officers within their sphere of jurisdiction and control, Managing Director, however shall be competent to order transfer of employees / officers from one circle to other circle and from field offices to the Head Office and vice versa." xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 3.2 The seniority inter se of members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of the service: Provided that for determining seniority inter se of members of the service in each category transferred and allocated to the Board in pursuance of provisions contained in section 29 of the Act, length of service on a post in the category in which such an employee joined for the first time in the Public Health Department, shall be taken into account: Provided that where there are different cadres in a service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre; Provided further that in the case of member recruited by direct appointment, order of merit determined by the Board by the Board or other recruiting authority, as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority: Provided further that in the case of two members, appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows: - (a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a members appointed by transfer; (b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; (c) in the case of members appointed by promotion of transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and (d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to member who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment, and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then, by their length of service in these appointments and if the length of such service is also the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Notes:- 1. Notes:- 1. Seniority of member on purely provisional basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. 2. In the case of members, whose period of probation is extended under regulation 2.9 of these regulations, the date of appointment for the purpose of this regulation shall be deemed to have been deferred to the extent the period of probation is extended. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9.1 Leave, Joining time fee, Suspension, Honorarium, Dearness Allowance, Fixation of pay, Grant of increment, Crossing of efficiency bar, Liveries and other Cognate Matters - Punjab Civil Services Rules framed by the Government in respect of persons employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab shall, as far as may be, apply to all matters with respect to which regulations are not made. 9.2 In respect of the leave, joining time, suspension fee, honorarium, dearness allowance, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, liveries, deputation and other cognate matters not expressly provided in these regulations, employees shall be Governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules and instructions applicable to Punjab Government employees." Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Punjab Mandi Board) 144. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (popularly known as 'Punjab Mandi Board') was established on 26.05.1961, under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, with an objective to control and supervise the marketing network of sale, purchase, storage and processing of processed or non-processed agricultural produce from agricultural, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest produce. However, as per Section 3(8) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, State Government has the power to exercise superintendence and control over the Punjab Mandi Board and its officers. And, the Punjab Mandi Board has the power of superintendence and control over the Market Committees constituted under the said 1961 Act. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989 145. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989, are applicable to such Class III (now Group C) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, which have been specified in Appendix 'A' to these rules, thereby prescribing their conditions of service. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989 145. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989, are applicable to such Class III (now Group C) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, which have been specified in Appendix 'A' to these rules, thereby prescribing their conditions of service. In Appendix 'A' while mentioning the designation of post, it has also been specified that whether a particular post falls under the category of 'Technical' or 'Non-Technical' post. For ready reference, relevant extract of Appendix 'A' appended to the aforementioned rules, is reproduced as under:- " Appendix 'A' [See Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4] Sr. In Appendix 'A' while mentioning the designation of post, it has also been specified that whether a particular post falls under the category of 'Technical' or 'Non-Technical' post. For ready reference, relevant extract of Appendix 'A' appended to the aforementioned rules, is reproduced as under:- " Appendix 'A' [See Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4] Sr. No. Designation Post Whether technical or non-technical 1 Superintendent Grade II Non-Technical 2 Legal Assistant Non-Technical 3 Senior Auditor/ Internal Auditor/ Superintendent S.A.S. Non-Technical 4 Personal Assistant Non-Technical 5 Circle Head Draftsman Technical 6 Publicity Supervisor Non-Technical 7 Technical Assistant Non-Technical 8 Technical Assistant (Cotton) Non-Technical 9 Liberarian Non-Technical 10 Programmer Non-Technical 11 Planning Assistant Technical 12 Assistant Secretary Market Committee Non-Technical 13 Laboratory Incharge Non-Technical 14 Divisional Head Draftsman (Civil) Divisional Head Draftsman (Public Health) Technical 15 Divisional Head Draftsman (Electrical) Technical 16 Divisional Head Draftsman (Two Planning) Technical 17 Junior Engineer (Civil)/ Junior Engineer (Public Health) Technical 18 Junior Engineer (Electrical) Technical 19 Junior Engineer (Mechanical) Technical 20 Senior Draftsman (Architect) Technical 21 Senior Mechanic-cum- Technician Technical 22 Assistant Programmer Non-Technical 23 Laboratory Assistant Non-Technical 24 Superintendent Grade IV (Civil)/ Superintendent Grade IV (Public Health)/ Superintendent Grade IV (Electrical) Non-Technical 25 Assistant/ Cashier/ Care Taker/ Assistant (Cotton) Non-Technical 26 Publicity Assistant Non-Technical 27 Senior Scale Stenographer Non-Technical 28 Gradomgj Supervisor Non-Technical 29 Statistical Assistant Non-Technical 30 Stenographers in the Engineering Wing in the field Non-Technical 31 Modeller-cum-Pattern Maker Non-Technical 32 Photographer-cum-Cinema Operator Non-Technical 33 Assistant Librarian Non-Technical 34 Artist Non-Technical 35 Junior Auditor Non-Technical 36 Munim Non-Technical 37 Accounts Clerk (Civil)/ Accounts Non-Technical 38 Assistant Draftsman (Civil)/ Assistant Technical 39 Assistant Draftsman (Public Health) Technical 40 Assistant Draftsman (Architect) and Assistant Draftsman (Town Planning) Technical 41 Divisional Accountant (Civil)/ Divisional Accountant (Public Health)/ Divisional Accountant (Electrical) Non-Technical 42 Sub-Divisional Clerk/ Senior Clerk of the Engineering Wing in the Field Non-Technical 43 Security Officer Non-Technical 44 Junior Scale Stenographer Non-Technical 45 Data Entry Operator Non-Technical 46 Grading Assistant Non-Technical 47 Clerks, typist, P.B.X. Operator, Clerk Store Project/ Clerks Engineering Wing at the head quarters Non-Technical 48 Computer Non-Technical 49 Laboratory Attendant Non-Technical 50 Steno-typist Non-Technical 51 Drivers Non-Technical 52 Restorer Non-Technical 53 Security Guard Non-Technical 54 Lift Operator Non-Technical 55 Machine Operator (Gestantor) Non-Technical 56 Plumber Non-Technical 57 Electrician Technical 58 Carpenter Technical 59 Library Attendant Non-Technical 60 Assistant Sub-Divisional Clerk/ Clerks of the Engineering Wing in the Field Non-Technical 61 Ferro Printer Non-Technical 62 Tracer (Civil)/ Tracer (Public Health)/ Tracer (Electricity)/ Tracer (Divisional Town Planning) Non-Technical Sr. No. 63 is not mentioned in the Appendix 64 Road Roller Driver Non-Technical 65 Surveyor Technical" 146. Rule 11 of these Rules entails the manner for determination of inter se seniority of the members of service in each cadre. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service is different, then their separate seniority shall have been fixed cadre-wise. 147. As per Rule 12 of the said Rules, a member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. Further, Rule 13(1) of the said rules, extends the applicability of the provisions of the Punjab CSR to such employees. Rules 11, 12 and 13 of the aforementioned Rules, are reproduced as under:- "11. Seniority of members of Service. Further, Rule 13(1) of the said rules, extends the applicability of the provisions of the Punjab CSR to such employees. Rules 11, 12 and 13 of the aforementioned Rules, are reproduced as under:- "11. Seniority of members of Service. - The Seniority inter se of the members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members appointed by direct appointment who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a maximum period of four months from the date of order of appointment, the seniority based on the order of merit determine by the recruiting authority, shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in a case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of four months in consultation with the recruiting authority, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in case a candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins, the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso: Provided further that in the case of two members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- (a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; (b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; (c) in the case of members appointed by promotion or transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and (d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawn a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment, and if the rate of pay drawing are also the same then by their length of service in those appointments; and if the length of such service is also the same an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Note.- Seniority of members of the Service appointed on purely provisional basis or on daily wages shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. 12. Liability to serve.- A member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. 13. Leave, pay and other matters etc. - (1) In respect of pay, leave and other matters expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time. (2) In respect of the provident fund and gratuity, the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1965 and the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1987." The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class IV) Service Rules, 1988 148. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989, are applicable to such Class IV (now Group D) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, which have been specified in Appendix 'A' to these rules i.e. Daftri, Jamadar, Chowkidar Peon/ Library Attendant, Peon-cum-Chowkidar, Sweeper, Head Mali, Helper, Beldar and Ferro Khalasi, prescribing their conditions of service. 149. Rule 10 of these Rules prescribes the manner for determination of inter se seniority of the members of service in each cadre. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service is different, then their separate seniority shall have been fixed cadre-wise. 150. As per Rule 11 of the said Rules, a member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. Rule 12(1) of the said rules, extends the applicability of the provisions of the Punjab CSR to the members of the Service. Rules 11 and 12 of the aforementioned rules are reproduced as as under:- "10. Seniority of members of Service. Rule 12(1) of the said rules, extends the applicability of the provisions of the Punjab CSR to the members of the Service. Rules 11 and 12 of the aforementioned rules are reproduced as as under:- "10. Seniority of members of Service. - The Seniority inter se of the members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members appointed by direct appointment who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a maximum period of four months from the date of order of appointment, the seniority based on the order of merit determine by the recruiting authority, shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in a case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of four months in consultation with the recruiting authority, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in case a candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins, the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso: Provided further that in the case of two members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- (a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; (b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; (c) in the case of members appointed by promotion or transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and (d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawn a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment, and if the rate of pay drawing are also the same then by their length of service in those appointments; and if the length of such service is also the same an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Note.- Seniority of members of the Service appointed on purely provisional basis or on daily wages shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. 11. Liability to Service. - A member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. 12. Leave, pay and other matters etc.- (1) In respect of pay, leave and other matters expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time. (2) In respect of the provident fund and gratuity, the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1965 and the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1987." The Punjab Market Committees (Class III) Service Rules, 1989; and The Punjab Market Committees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989 151. These two sets of rules are applicable to the members of the Service working in the Market Committees, over which the Punjab Mandi Board has the power of superintendence and control. Since, the provisions governing the conditions of service of the members of the Services under these rules, are akin to the rules applicable to the corresponding members of the Services of the Punjab Mandi Board, with a view to avoid repetition, the same are not being adverted to or reproduced. Notification No. 6/10/79/ge-3969, Published In The Punjab Government Gazette (Extra Ordinary), Dated 07.04.1980 & Clarification Issued Vide Memo. No. J.M/anka(2)74/9775, Dated 02.03.1994 152. At this juncture, it is imperative for this Court to refer the notification dated 07.04.1980, issued by the State of Punjab, which in fact, is the root of the present controversy. By the said notification, it was notified by the State of Punjab that 'all Saturdays of every month instead of second and last Saturdays of each month as earlier notified shall be observed as holidays in Government offices through out the State of Punjab till further orders'. By the said notification, it was notified by the State of Punjab that 'all Saturdays of every month instead of second and last Saturdays of each month as earlier notified shall be observed as holidays in Government offices through out the State of Punjab till further orders'. The Government further fixed the working hours in these offices from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M., with half an hour break from 1.30 P.M. to 2.00 P.M. 153. For convenience and ready reference, complete notification dated 07.04.1980, is reproduced as under:- " Seal Punjab Government Punjab Government Gazette Extra Ordinary Published By Authority Chandigarh, Monday, April 7, 1980 (Chaitra 10, 1902 Saka) (General Establishment Branch) Notification The 7th April, 1980 6/10/79/GE-3969 - In partial modification of Notification No. 6/18/79/GE(6)/10898, DATED THE 6th September, 1979, it is hereby notified that all Saturdays of every month instead of second and last Saturdays of each month as earlier notified shall be observed as holidays in Government offices through out the State of Punjab till further orders. The working hours in these offices shall be from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. half an hour break from 1.30 P.M. to 2.00 P.M. K.S. Narang Chief Secretary to Government Punjab" 154. Subsequently, Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, on the subject of 'performing of government duty by the field staff on gazetted holiday', was issued in continuation of an earlier letter No. 6/10/93-6PP111/20107, dated 03.11.1993, issued by the Punjab Government, thereby clarifying that 'the employees who are working in the field, they are entitled only for Sunday holiday'. In other words, the field staff is not entitled for two days holiday in a week in terms of the letter dated 02.03.1994, issued by the Punjab Government. Letter dated 02.03.1994, which is in Gurmukhi script, alongwith its translation into English, as supplied by Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, is taken on record of CWP No. 6535 of 2017, as Mark-'A', and the same reads as under:- "Subject: Regarding deputing of field staff on official duty on Gazetted Holiday. According to the Punjab Government letter No. 6/10/93-6PP 111/20107, dated 3.11.93, the office staff working under the Punjab State Government offices are entitled to holiday on Saturday and Sunday. The employees who are working in the field, they are entitled holiday on Sunday only. According to the Punjab Government letter No. 6/10/93-6PP 111/20107, dated 3.11.93, the office staff working under the Punjab State Government offices are entitled to holiday on Saturday and Sunday. The employees who are working in the field, they are entitled holiday on Sunday only. Thus, the field staff is not entitled for two days holiday in a week as per abovesaid letter of Punjab Government. Regular work-charged and work-charged staff is entitled for holidays as per Rule 1.132 of P.W.D. Code and regular establishment work-charged are entitled for P.W.D. Code Rule 1.132 and as per the draft rules which have been sent to the Government for approval, under Rule 1.16 which is detailed as under:- 1.16 Leave Pension & Other Matters a) Punjab Civil Services Rules shall be applicable to the regular work-charged employees except notified Government Public Holidays schedule for offices. However, they are entitled one rest after every six working days alongwith 3 National Holidays and two restricted holidays during respective calendar year." Submissions By Amicus Curiae 155. Vide order dated 04.03.2024, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, were appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, subject to their convenience. However, probably on being already occupied, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, could not make it possible to appear all the times and, therefore, in his absence the required job was well accomplished by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, to assist the Court. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, first of all referred the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and elaborated in detail its scope, by submitting that where any workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, for recovery of the said admitted claim/entitlement, the recovery proceedings can be started akin to the execution of the decree/order. In fact, he insists that in case, if there is a pre-decided or pre-existing right in terms of money and same being recoverable from the employer, Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is the enabling provision of law which enables the employee a speedy remedy for computation and recovery of his monetary and non-monetary benefits. Broadly speaking, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate submits that provision enshrined in Section 33C(2) is nothing but an execution proceeding in pursuance to a money decree. 156. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Broadly speaking, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate submits that provision enshrined in Section 33C(2) is nothing but an execution proceeding in pursuance to a money decree. 156. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, cited para Nos. 4 and 7 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries (supra), and submitted that when there is a dispute regarding the entitlement of the claim of workmen/employee, the Labour Court/Tribunal has no power to proceed with the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act as the said provision is only for the purpose of execution. 157. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, further argued that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), a comparative study of the service conditions of the employees before it vis-a-vis co-employees working in the Octroi Department of Punjab Municipal Committees, was done and thereafter it was held that the employees before it, being similarly situated vis-a-vis the other employees working in the Octroi Department are entitled for one and same relief i.e. entitlement for extra wages for working on Saturdays. For reaching to the said conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted the service conditions of both of them i.e. Clerks and Peons working at the Octroi Check-posts and Barriers by comparing it with other office based colleagues, who enjoyed Saturday as "off day". On a comparative study, Hon'ble the Apex Court found that: i) There was a common seniority list of both sets of employees; ii) Both sets of employees were getting similar pay scales; iii) Posts of both sets of employees were intertransferable; and iv) Service conditions of both segments of the employees were governed by same set of rules. Thus, argument addressed by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, is to establish that in Sirhind's case (supra), there was a comparative study of two sets of employees amongst equals and thereafter, the benefit for working on Saturdays was granted by the Court to the employees before it. 158. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate also referred the Punjab Government Gazette notification No. 6/10/79/GE-3969, dated 07.04.1980, vide which all Saturdays of every month, instead of second and last Saturday, were ordered to be observed as holidays in Government Offices and working hours were fixed from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, with lunch break of half-an-hour from 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate also referred the Punjab Government Gazette notification No. 6/10/79/GE-3969, dated 07.04.1980, vide which all Saturdays of every month, instead of second and last Saturday, were ordered to be observed as holidays in Government Offices and working hours were fixed from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, with lunch break of half-an-hour from 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm. He also pertinently pointed out that later on Punjab Government had issued Memo No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, clarifying that only office staff would be entitled for holidays on Saturdays and Sundays and not the field staff. 159. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, also referred Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR (already reproduced above), for explaining the definition of "whole time of a Government Employee at the disposal of Government", and submitted that the employees, whose services are governed by the Punjab CSR, are in fact, whole time employees of the State Government and their services are at disposal of the Government. By giving a wider thought to it, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, submitted that infact, the State Government may require the working from its employees (Public Servants) at any point of time and, therefore, their working period should be considered as 24 x 7. 160. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, further submitted that in fact, each and every case is to be examined separately/individually with regard to the facts involved therein, such as service conditions and the rules applicable to the service. However, there is no denial that any individual amongst equals cannot be treated differently by causing any kind of discrimination with him. Therefore, being an Amicus Curiae, Mr. Anurag Goyal while sharing his thought pleads that each and every case vis-a-vis the departmental conditions are required to be addressed independently on individual basis. 161. In the next limb of his submissions, Mr. Anurag Goyal has pointed out that some of the employees of Nagar Council, Samrala, had filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal, for claiming extra wages for working on Saturdays, which was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal. When the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal were assailed before the Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the writ petition filed by the Nagar Council, Samrala, was dismissed. When the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal were assailed before the Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the writ petition filed by the Nagar Council, Samrala, was dismissed. Subsequent thereto, both the aforesaid orders, i.e. passed by the Industrial Tribunal as well as learned Single Bench of this Court, were assailed by way of LPA No. 1178 of 2015, titled as Nagar Council Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others, which was allowed by reversing the order/judgment passed by learned Tribunal as well as Single bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.04.2016 (reported as 2016 SCC Online P&H 10136). In fact, in its order dated 26.04.2016, Hon'ble Division Bench/Letters Patent Bench affirmed the viewpoint of another Division Bench of this Court, which was adopted in the case of Balbir Singh (supra). Subsequently, said ratio was again followed and applied by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Lal v. Sub Divisional Engineer, Sub Division Horticulture, PWD (B&R), Ludhiana and others" (LPA No. 913 of 2019, decided on 24.07.2019, reported as Law Finder Doc Id # 1598870). 162. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, also submitted that the Employees' Union of the Fire Brigade Department of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, had raised a claim of overtime allowance, by filing CWP No. 1221 of 2010, titled as "Municipal Fire Brigade Union v. State of Punjab and others", before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), and the same was disposed of by a Single Bench vide order dated 25.01.2010, by directing the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, to take an appropriate decision in that regard. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, rejected the claim of the Employees' Union of the Fire Brigade, vide order dated 22.04.2010, on the premise that as per the Government circular dated 10.11.1993, the Fire Brigade employees have been granted certain special facilities such as: "i) The employees shall be given 20 special casual leave in addition to the usual casual leave as admissible to other staff, in lieu of gazetted holidays and Saturdays and second Saturday; ii) Uniform at the cost of Municipal Council; iii) Rent free accommodation within Fire Station or near to Fire Station or prescribed scale along with free water and electricity upto certain limit or in the alternative, the house rent at prescribed rates; iv) Provision for outdoor games, News papers and Magazines in Fire Station. v) Since the Fire Staff has accepted the appointment after fully knowing the nature of duties and responsibilities, therefore, they are bound to show desired discipline." Challenging the order dated 22.04.2010, Employees' Union again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 12809 of 2010, titled as "Municipal Fire Brigade Union Regd. v. State of Punjab and others". Thereupon, claim of the members of the Fire Brigade Department for grant of 'over time allowance' was held to be untenable by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in its decision dated 23.07.2010, passed in CWP No. 12809 of 2010. 163. Mr. Anurag Goyal, thus, submitted that the employees of the Fire Brigade Department, whose services are governed by the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977, and general Standing Orders issued thereunder, are not entitled for any extra wages for the duty performed on Saturdays. Rather, it requires to be conceived in advance in the mind of a person seeking employment in such like services that in case of emergency or exigencies of the service, he/she may be required to be deployed to meet out an emergent situation for en-number of days continuously, even without any break. However, considering arduous nature of duties of the members of the Fire Brigade, the Government has taken a conscious decision and granted number of incentives/benefits in favour of such employees, while framing the Standing Orders under the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977, which are not available to other Services/categories of employees working in the same municipality. 164. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate also relied upon the earlier judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Nagar Council, Mandi Gobindgarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others (CWP No. 8344 of 2015, decided on 29.07.2016, reported as Law Finder Doc Id # 796970), wherein P.B. Bajanthri, J. (Judge of this Court) rejected the claim of extra wages for working on Saturdays by observing that the employees of said case, who were belonging to the cadres of Tubewell Operator, Assistant Pump Driver, Beldar, Plumber, Fitter, Sewerman and Sevadar, do not fall under the category of 'a cadre of person', who discharge duties both in office as well as in the field. In the said judgment, Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Cour) even held that the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sirhind's case (supra) is in 'personam' and not in 'rem'. Aruments of Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, Representing The Municipalities of Patiala, Sangrur And Ferozepur 165. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, submitted that all the employees working in the Municipal Corporations/Municipal Councils cannot be held entitled for their claim of extra wages/salary in lieu of their working on Saturdays or the 'off day'. In fact, all such employees have failed to understand the true spirit of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), wherein after examining the facts of that particular case, their Lordships' had found that the employees working in the offices and Octroi check-posts and barriers were governed by one set of service rules and their seniority was common. Even, it was found that their transfers and postings were inter-changeable. Therefore, the employees posted on the Octroi Check-posts and barriers were held to be at par with their counterparts posted in the offices, who were enjoying the benefit of Saturday off. Thus, Hon'ble the Apex Court declared that both sets of the employees, i.e. posted in office and posted on field duty, formed one common group and, therefore, held that the employees from whom the work is taken on Saturday/holiday by deputing them on Octroi Check-post and barriers, would be paid extra wages for such period/day, failing which, it would amount to discrimination with the field staff vis-avis office staff, who otherwise also belong to the same group of employees. In other words, it would have caused different treatment amongst equals. 166. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, referred to the facts discussed in the judgment of Sirhind's case (supra) and the findings given therein. He further submitted that after giving a specific finding of holding the appellants therein entitled to extra wages for performing duty on 'Saturdays', the Hon'ble Apex Court asked them to recover the amount by filing the relevant application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal. 167. Mr. He further submitted that after giving a specific finding of holding the appellants therein entitled to extra wages for performing duty on 'Saturdays', the Hon'ble Apex Court asked them to recover the amount by filing the relevant application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal. 167. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, also submitted that in the cases filed by the Clerks, Malis and other Services of the Municipalities, neither there is any such plea raised in the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, nor any such evidence has been brought on record. Instead of referring the factual matrix of each and every cases being represented by him, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, referred to the facts of CWP No. 4088 of 2015, titled as 'Municipal Corporation, Patiala v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others', and submitted that in this case, one witness, namely, Gora Lal (MW1), was produced by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, who deposed in specific that the workmen/employees, who were engaged as 'Mali', were working in the field since the beginning and the post of field staff is not inter-transferable with office staff. The said witness also clarified that the field staff is also getting extra benefits like washing allowance, shoe allowance, uniform allowance, cycle allowance, etc. 168. While referring to the cases pertaining to the Safai Karamcharis' and other posts covered under the Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1975, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, submitted that the services of all the employees are governed by these Rules, which have been framed after exercising due care and considering all the conditions/exigencies which the employees need to meet out during the course of service. In this regard, Mr. Soni referred to Rule 15 of the aforementioned Rules (already reproduced by this Court in the earlier part of the judgment). 169. In conjunction thereof, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, also referred the Safai Karamchari Rules and submitted that as per Rule 2(g), 'Service' means the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, and as per Rule 16 of the Safai Karamchari Rules, the leave of all these employees is governed as per the provisions of Punjab CSR. 169. In conjunction thereof, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, also referred the Safai Karamchari Rules and submitted that as per Rule 2(g), 'Service' means the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, and as per Rule 16 of the Safai Karamchari Rules, the leave of all these employees is governed as per the provisions of Punjab CSR. Rule 17 of the Safai Karamchai Rules also prescribes the holidays and it clearly says that the employee would be entitled for one paid holiday in a week; three national holidays i.e. 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October and four other holidays at the option of the member on any of the festivals specified in Appendix 'C'. As per Rule 23 of the Safai Karamchari Rules, the members of the Service are required to work for 8 hours in a day and their services can be taken in two sessions i.e. Morning and Evening, as per the weather conditions. 170. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, thus, submitted that in respect of the members of the Service governed under the Safai Karamchari Rules, already due care has been taken by the rule framers, i.e. in respect of working days, holidays, optional leave, working hours, as also the National holidays. As far as the claim of extra wages in lieu of working on Saturdays is concerned, the Safai Karamchari Rules clearly provides one off day as paid holiday in a week. Thus, the members of the Service governed under the Safai Karamchari Rules are not entitled for any five day working week, rather, they are required to work for six days out of total seven in a week, and render 8 hours of service on daily basis. And, they cannot wriggle out of the provisions of the Rules with which their services are governed, since the time of their appointment with the establishment. 171. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, also referred to the letter/circular bearing No.6/10/93-6PP 111/20107 dated 03.11.1993 issued by the State of Punjab, which was further circulated in the Municipal Councils/Corporations vide Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2) 74/9775 dated 02.03.1994, vide which it has been clarified that 'the employees who are working in the field, are entitled only for Sunday holiday'. Referring to para 7 of the order dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court in CWP No. 4088 of 2015, Mr. No. J.M/ANKA(2) 74/9775 dated 02.03.1994, vide which it has been clarified that 'the employees who are working in the field, are entitled only for Sunday holiday'. Referring to para 7 of the order dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court in CWP No. 4088 of 2015, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, specifically pointed out that the aforementioned circular letter dated 02.03.1994 was duly produced and proved in evidence as Ex. M1 before the Industrial Tribunal. Not only this, the Industrial Tribunal in para 13 of its order dated 31.03.2014, also discussed about the contents of Ex. M1, but no finding thereon has been recorded at the time of passing of the order. For ready reference, the contents of para Nos. 7 and 13 of the order dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, while deciding Application No. 450 of 2008, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which was filed by one Dinesh Kumar s/o Devki Nandan, Mali, are reproduced as under:- "7. In order to rebut the evidence of the workman, respondents examined MW1 Sh. Gora Lal Supervisor of the respondent who stated on oath that Director Local Self Government is the Head of the Department. The applicant was initially engaged as Mali in the field and since then he is working in the field. One rest is given to the field staff after performing duty for six days in a week. The post of field staff is not inter-transferable with the office staff. The field staff gets the extra benefits of washing allowance, shoe allowance, uniform allowance, Cycle allowance etc. but on the other hand, this benefit is not given to the office staff. The applicant is covered under the Municipal Act. Vide Ex. M1 the separate rules are framed for the field staff. As per relevant page 132 Rule (letter No.) ANKA(2) 74/97/75 of the Municipal Digest, the applicant is only entitled for one rest in a week that he is availing one rest in a week. The Commissioner of corporation is not competent to amend the rules. It is his demand to give extra wages for Saturdays which is not acceptable to the respondent. As per the rules the applicant is drawing full salary of every month. Nothing is due towards the management. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. The Commissioner of corporation is not competent to amend the rules. It is his demand to give extra wages for Saturdays which is not acceptable to the respondent. As per the rules the applicant is drawing full salary of every month. Nothing is due towards the management. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. It is undisputed that five days week was allowed vide circular No. 6/10/79-GE-3969 that stipulated "In partial notification of Notification No. 6/10/79-GE(6)/10898, dated the 6th September, 1979, it is hereby notified that all Saturdays of every month instead of second and last Saturdays of each month as earlier notified shall be observed as holidays in Government Offices through out the State of Punjab till further orders. The working hours in these offices shall be from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. half an hour break from 1.30 P.M. to 2.00 P.M." 172. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, thus, argued that the Industrial Tribunal has grossly erred by not looking into the provisions of the relevant Service Rules, as also the clarification issued by State of Punjab on 03.11.1993, which was further forwarded to its agencies i.e. Municipalities etc. vide Memo. dated 02.03.1994 (Ex. M1). Undoubtedly, such letters have been issued by the State of Punjab keeping in mind true letter and spirit of the Rules, for which they have been framed. Thus, Mr. Soni prayed for allowing of all the writ petitions filed by the Municipalities. 173. Other than this, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, emphatically raised the question of maintainability of applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, so far as the present set of writ petitions are concerned. While arguing on this issue, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, submitted that it is an established position of law that an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act would be maintainable only if the workman has a legal right in relation to his claim. He will have to first establish the same and only then a right to file application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act will accrue to him. 174. In sum and substance, the star argument of Mr. He will have to first establish the same and only then a right to file application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act will accrue to him. 174. In sum and substance, the star argument of Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, is that Sirhind's case (supra) is entirely on a different footing of facts and the employees in the writ petitions filed by the Municipalities have completely failed in establishing any equal right vis-a-vis the Clerks and Peons working on the Octroi Check-posts and barriers, whose cases were before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Arguments of Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, Representing The Punjab Mandi Board 175. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, submitted that joint applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act were filed by T-mates, Helpers, Pump Operators, Plumbers, Sewerman, Sweepers, Fitters and Coolies, who fall under the wing of 'Public Health' and are involved in the maintenance of essential services like Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation work. Their services are required round the clock. Employees working on these posts are required to work six days a week. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, also pointed out that some of the categories of the employees are already in receipt of additional benefits, such as free residence, free water and electricity supply, summer and winter uniforms and maintenance allowances. However, no such benefits are available/admissible to the employees, exclusively devoted to the office work. 176. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further submitted that other categories like Survey Khalasi, Electricians, Supervisors, Chowkidars and Junior Engineers work on both sides, i.e. Public Health - Civil and Electrical Side. Junior Engineers work on both the sides of Public Health, i.e. Civil and Electrical, and they have supervisory powers over the other categories and, therefore, not covered within the definition of 'Workman' as per the ID Act. 177. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further submitted that there is a complete misjoinder of parties as different set of workmen working in the different capacities like Pump Operator, Helper, Chowkidar, Sewerman, Fitter, Fitter Coolie, T-mate, Plumber etc, had jointly filed the application. In fact, such a joint application is not maintainable because every employee is working in different capacities, for different purposes, under different service conditions and the Rules. In fact, such a joint application is not maintainable because every employee is working in different capacities, for different purposes, under different service conditions and the Rules. Even the nature of duties are different, inasmuch as, some of the duties are of normal routine and some are of utmost exigencies, which may be required at any point of time during the course of the day/week. Therefore, a joint application filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID by such workmen is not maintainable. 178. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, also submitted that in the joint application filed by the employees belonging to the different categories, even the facts cannot be examined by the Court so as to find out whether the parameters as discussed and decided in Sirhind's case (supra) are met out or not, in view of the service conditions of different employees. Thus, argued that, in fact, such joint applications have been moved without understanding the true import and meaning of Sirhind's case (supra). 179. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, also pointed out that in none of the cases, the services are inter-transferable/inter-changeable. Even, there is no common cadre and seniority. Thus, the principle of law laid in Sirhind's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts enumerated in the applications filed by the employees against the Punjab Mandi Board. While stressing more upon the nature of the services to say that the employees in all such categories are whole time worker of the Government, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, refers to the relevant Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR. Needless to say, Rule 3.10 has also been referred by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate - Amicus Curiae. 180. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further argued that the employees of Punjab Mandi Board, who have filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act of 1947, belong to the different cadres, having independent seniority in the field area. There is no question of any common seniority of such employees with the office staff. To repel the demand of the field staff employees, who are respondents in the writ petitions filed by the Punjab Mandi Board, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, argued that so far as work of laying/recarpeting of road is concerned, the activity comes to a standstill for a period of almost six months in one year, i.e. during rainy as well as winter season. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, argued that so far as work of laying/recarpeting of road is concerned, the activity comes to a standstill for a period of almost six months in one year, i.e. during rainy as well as winter season. Similarly, construction activities are also not carried out during rainy season, whereas during this period, aforesaid categories of employees continue to enjoy full wages. On the other hand, the employees in the office staff shall have to work round the year. In addition to the statutory service benefits, employees in the field staff are in receipt of extra benefits and said fact has even been admitted by one of the witness, namely, Harkamal Singh Gill s/o Harcharan Singh Gill (WW2), when he appeared as witness during the proceeding of recording of evidence in the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 181. By preparing a brief note, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, has forwarded the statement of the said witness (WW2) and for reference, same is reproduced herebelow: "WW2: Harkamal Singh Gill son of Sh. Harcharan Singh Gill aged 52 years residents of VPO Burj Hakiman, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana recalled for his cross examination on S.A. xxxx Sh. R.K. Markan, AR of the respondent. It is correct that I am authorized by any union to give the statement on behalf of Nirbhai Singh and others except A-7, I have no other documents to authorize me to record statement on behalf of 18 other applicants. Supervisor, driver, chowkidar, road roler, helper Junior Engineer and etc. are working in the field and they are considered as field staff. It is correct that all the above said petitioners perform their duty in the field. It is correct that all the petitioner are not working in the office. It is correct that extra pay to the above said categories are not paid earlier by the respondent Board. It is correct that the main duty of the supervisor are to supervise the work done by labourer of the contractor or other employees subordinate the work supervisor also works physically. It is correct that the petitioner Gagroop Singh, Ravinder Singh and Saroop Singh are working as junior engineer which is supervisory post. J.E. does the measurement of the filed. It is correct that Junior Engineer used to mark the attendance of the supervisor, driver, chowkidar and helper, Leave is recommended by JE, and sanctioned by SDO. It is correct that the petitioner Gagroop Singh, Ravinder Singh and Saroop Singh are working as junior engineer which is supervisory post. J.E. does the measurement of the filed. It is correct that Junior Engineer used to mark the attendance of the supervisor, driver, chowkidar and helper, Leave is recommended by JE, and sanctioned by SDO. J.E. Check/supervise the work of contractor. The extra benefit like fixed LTA Rs.750/- per month is being given to the J.E. for performing field duty. It is correct that supervisors get Rs.250/- as convenience allowance. It is correct that extra special allowance is given to the driver categories @ Rs.750/- per month. It is correct that the uniform for summer and winter were given to the driver by the respondent Board. It is correct that extra benefit/special allowance is not given to the official staff. It is correct that posting of the above said categories Supervisor, driver, chowkidar, road roller, helper Junior Engineer and helper and etc. are not transferable with the employees working in the office. It is correct that the seniority list of the above said categories are separately maintained from the office staff . It is correct that present claim application is filed in the name of Nirbhai Singh and others under the registered one application No.797/2008. It is correct that I along with other co-workers filed CWP No.18644/2002 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court copy of which is Ex.A3 direction in A-3 Director of the reponsed passed order Ex.M1 dated 11.06.2003. This order was sent to all the office bearers. Thereafter we filed CWP No. 16541/2003 in which order A-10 was passed. The respondent Board filed CA 16B/2006 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order Ex.All. It is correct that Punjab Mandi Board has its own rules for class III and IV employees which is applicable upon us. It is correct that Punjab Mandi Board has its own rules for class III and IV employees which is applicable upon us. It is correct that we have not filed any complaint to the labour inspector, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Secretary to labour department regarding extra wages. It is correct that I and other 18 applicants are demanding extra wages for the first time. I cannot tell the break up of my claim amount. I and co-applicants were working on work charge basis. We were regularized on 05.04.1999. It is correct that I and other 18 applicants are demanding extra wages for the first time. I cannot tell the break up of my claim amount. I and co-applicants were working on work charge basis. We were regularized on 05.04.1999. There are no rules of Mandi Board. It is correct that the function of the Punjab Mandi Board (civil Wings) and PWD civil wings are similar nature. It is correct that the nature of the duty of field staff and office staff is quite different. It is correct that the notification of 5 days week dated 07.04.1980 applicable for the office staff only and not applicable to field staff. It is correct that I and my co-applicant have received salary for the entire months including Saturday and Sunday. It is incorrect to suggest that I am not entitled extra wages. It is incorrect to suggest that I have filed false affidavit. It is incorrect that respondent has It's own rules. RO&AC Sd/- Ramesh Kumari Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal, Patiala/16.04.2013" 182. By explaining all the circumstances as having been recorded here above also, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, vehemently submitted that there is not an iota of similarity in the facts regarding the working conditions of the employees herein and the employees who were there before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). There is nothing to assume that the service conditions of the office and field staffs are similar or they are similarly situated, thus, in view of the differentiation between the two different set of categories and certain admissions by the witness/employee-WW2, namely, Harkamal Singh Gill, the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act ought to have been dismissed. Therefore, submits that writ petitions filed by the Punjab Mandi Board deserve to be allowed. 183. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further argued that since there is no award/judgment/order or any kind of decision in favour of the employees, holding their entitlement for claiming of extra wages for working on Saturdays, as an extra working day, even the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which in fact, has to proceed, as prescribed for execution proceedings, is not maintainable. To strengthen his arguments, Mr. To strengthen his arguments, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, relied upon the following judgments: i) Judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), titled as 'Om Parkash Aerry and others v. Union of India and others, (CWP No. 9934 of 2004, decided on 20.07.2004, reported as 2004 SCC Online P&H 1461 : (2004) 5 SLR 61 (DB) : 2004 (4) SCT 55); ii) Judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), titled as Nagar Council, Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others (LPA No. 1178 of 2015, decided 26.04.2016, reported as 2016 SCC Online P&H 10136); and iii) Judgment of Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), titled as Nagar Council, Mandi Gobindgarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, (CWP No. 8344 of 2015, decided on 29.07.2016, reported as Law Finder Doc Id # 796970). 184. No other counsel has addressed the arguments on behalf of the State of Punjab or its agencies like Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation, Mandi Board, Roadways etc. Arguments By The Counsel Representing The Employees Arguments by Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate 185. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, and his associates have represented number of employees of different cadres, categories, departments and municipalities. However, during addressing of arguments, instead of adverting to each and every case individually, with a view to avoid repetition, as also to save time, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, opted to advance the arguments as a whole, by citing the factual matrix from certain writ petitions pertaining to different set of employees. 186. First of all, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, referred CWP No. 22328 of 2011, titled as 'State of Punjab v. Pritam Bhagat and others', wherein there are total 178 employees of the Punjab Roadways, who were posted/working as Drivers, Conductors, Junior Technicians, Electricians, Carpenter, TG-2, TG-3, Helper, Welder, Mechanic, Tyreman, Blacksmith, Washing Boy, Upholster and Painter etc.. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, submitted that initially, the aforementioned employees filed CWP No. 19853 of 2002, titled as 'Pritam Bhagat and others v. State of Punjab and others', wherein they sought extra wages for working six days in a week. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, submitted that initially, the aforementioned employees filed CWP No. 19853 of 2002, titled as 'Pritam Bhagat and others v. State of Punjab and others', wherein they sought extra wages for working six days in a week. While deciding CWP No. 19853 of 2002 on 13.10.2002, this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) held that the right to receive monetary benefits for working on Saturday has already been settled by the Highest Court of the land and in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act of the employees who had worked for Saturdays and Sundays can hardly be refuted (order dated 13.10.2002, passed in CWP Nos. 19852 & 19853 of 2002, has already been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment). 187. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further submitted that in view of the observation made by this Court in the order dated 13.10.2002, employees moved Application No. 153 of 2003, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, on 12.06.2008 and thereupon, same has been allowed vide order dated 02.08.2011, by holding that the pre-existing right in favour of the employees has already been settled vide decision of the this Court in CWP No. 19853 of 2002. Since, the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, has been allowed keeping in view the observations made by this Court, there would not be any justification in reversing the finding, by allowing the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab and/or its authorities. 188. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further submitted that once, this Court has given a finding regarding the right of the employees to receive monetary benefits that too after the declaration of their rights by Hon'ble the Apex Court, claim of the employees can hardly be refuted and the decision which was inter se parties, has already attained finality. 189. Broadly, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, argued for dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab. 190. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, while arguing for 181 employees in CWP No. 21510 of 2013 (as respondents No. 2 to 182), titled as 'State of Punjab v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar and others', submitted that employees, who are parties in the writ petition, are from technical staff, working on the posts of Mechanic, Welder, Carpenter etc. 190. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, while arguing for 181 employees in CWP No. 21510 of 2013 (as respondents No. 2 to 182), titled as 'State of Punjab v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar and others', submitted that employees, who are parties in the writ petition, are from technical staff, working on the posts of Mechanic, Welder, Carpenter etc. Earlier, they had filed CWP No. 20205 of 2002, titled as, 'Issac Mall v. State of Punjab and others', claiming extra wages for working six days in a week or a five days working week, as given to staff members working in the office. This Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), while disposing of the said writ petition, vide order dated 15.12.2002, observed that the State Government would consider the claim of the employees on its own and then pass an appropriate order, as expeditiously as possible. Court also observed that "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 appears to us that right of the petitioners stand settled and it is only consequential benefits in terms of money that are being denied by the respondents to the petitioner." 191. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further submitted that after refusal of the claim by the Departments of the State of Punjab, employees filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the Industrial Tribunal, vide order dated 12.06.2008, by holding that there is an existing right of the employees as has already been settled by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, State Government was directed to make payment of the claimed amount within three months. 192. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, then referred CWP No. 9011 of 2013, titled as 'Municipal Council, Jalalabad v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others', and submitted that employees in the said writ petition were/are employed as Pump Operator, Mali, Chowkidar, Sewerman, and Tractor Drivers etc., in the Municipal Council, Jalalabad. 192. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, then referred CWP No. 9011 of 2013, titled as 'Municipal Council, Jalalabad v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others', and submitted that employees in the said writ petition were/are employed as Pump Operator, Mali, Chowkidar, Sewerman, and Tractor Drivers etc., in the Municipal Council, Jalalabad. At first instance, all these employees had filed CWP No. 7252 of 1996, titled as 'Sukhdev Raj v. State of Punjab and others' and same was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2002, in the same terms as in the order dated 15.03.2000, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case(supra). While deciding CWP No. 7252 of 1996, this Court observed in its order dated 07.02.2002 as under: " We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records. We dispose of this petition on the same terms as mentioned in the order dated 15.03.2000 Annexure P-9 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8434 of 1997" Thereafter, the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act has been allowed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, by accepting the claim of the employees for extra wages qua Saturday working. However, the claim was restricted to the preceding three years to the institution of the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. This is how the Municipal Council, Jalalabad, has assailed the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, for granting benefit to the employees for their working on Saturdays in the preceding three years of filing of their respective applications. 193. While defending the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, submitted that once, the writ petition filed by the employees was disposed of in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in Sirhind's case (supra), grant of benefit of extra wages by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, cannot be questioned by the State of Punjab and, thus, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 194. Broadly, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, based his claim on the direction passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in its order dated 07.02.2002 in CWP No. 7252 of 1996 and submits that the right of the employees has already been considered and covered by this Court itself, at par with the employees, who were before Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 195. 195. For defending the claim of the employees, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) and the observation made by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in its order dated 13.02.2002, passed in CWP No.19852 of 2002 (already reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment). 196. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, defended the orders passed by various Industrial Tribunals in favour of the employees, by citing the judgment of Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the case of Commissioner Secretary, Printing and Stationary, Haryana and another v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and another (CWP No. 20865 of 2008, decided on 13.02.2009, reported as 2009 (2) SCT 328 : Law Finder Doc Id # 182783), where in a similar situation, i.e. in view of the direction given in the earlier round of litigation to consider the claim keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in Sirhind's case (supra), the decision of the Tribunal passed in the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, was maintained. 197. To argue on the principle of equal treatment, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Niranjan Dass and others v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No. 1539 of 1987, decided on 29.03.2006, reported as 2006 (3) SCT 199 : Law Finder Doc Id # 121050), and referred paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12 thereof. 198. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further relied on para Nos. 7 and 8 of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Nirbhai Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board and another (CWP No. 16541 of 2003, decided on 19.07.2005, reported as 2005 (6) SLR 286 : 2005 (10) SCT 894 : Law Finder Doc Id # 140174), wherein suspecting discrimination and realising that the employees in the Punjab Mandi Board, working in the Construction and Engineering wing, were working on Saturdays, whereas the other employees, employed in the office of Punjab Mandi Board, were enjoying holiday on Saturdays, the employees of Construction and Engineering Wing, were held entitled for some monetary compensation for working on Saturdays. 199. For strengthening his arguments that the employees cannot be treated differently, Mr. 199. For strengthening his arguments that the employees cannot be treated differently, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, cited the judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in the case of Municipal Council, Morinda v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another (CWP No. 2182 of 2014, decided on 28.05.2014, reported as 2014 (15) SCT 766 : Law Finder Doc Id # 626089). Arguments by Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate 200. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr. Dilshad Singh Gill, Mr. Laxman Choudhry, Advocate and Mr. Lovepreet Kaur, Advocate, represented the respondent-employees in following writ petitions, which were filed by the Punjab Mandi Board:- Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Respondents 1 07209 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur Nirbhai Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh & others 2 20564 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Nachhatter Singh s/o Ajmer Singh & others 3 10472 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur & another Harminder Singh s/o Atma Singh & others 4 02260 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur Malkit Singh s/o Jagdev Singh & others 5 11889 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot Varinderjeet Puri s/o Des Raj & others 6 20565 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Gurnam Singh s/o Surjeet Singh & others 7 20566 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Bharpur Singh s/o Jarnail Singh & others 8 20567 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Jasmel Singh s/o Chand Singh & others 9 20568 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Jaitu, District Faridkot Balbir Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh & others 10 20571 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Gurshwinder Singh s/o Bhola Singh & others 201. While representing the respondents/applicants/employees in the aforementioned writ petitions, Mr. G.S. Bal, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by the Punjab Mandi Board against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, in respective cases, allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Further submitted that the orders impugned in the aforementioned writ petitions are liable to be sustained as the issue in question has already attained finality up to Hon'ble the Apex Court. 202. Mr. Further submitted that the orders impugned in the aforementioned writ petitions are liable to be sustained as the issue in question has already attained finality up to Hon'ble the Apex Court. 202. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, argued that the employees / respondents / applicants in the writ petitions, at first instance had approached the Punjab Mandi Board Authorities for payment of extra wages for the duties performed by them on Saturdays. Such a claim was raised on the strength of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). On not paying any heed to the request, employees had to file CWP Nos. 18643 of 2002 (Satpal Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board) and 18644 of 2002 (Nirbhai Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board and another), which were disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 23.11.2002, with a direction to the respondents therein to decide the representations preferred by the employees. 203. The representations filed by the employees were rejected by the Punjab Mandi Board, vide order dated 11.06.2003, which was challenged in the case of Nirbhai Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board and another (CWP No. 16541 of 2003, decided on 19.07.2005, reported as 2005 (6) S.L.R. 286 : 2005 (10) SCT 894 : Law Finder Doc Id # 140174). 204. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, submitted that Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), vide judgment dated 19.07.2005 in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra), after noticing the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), recorded its finding and observed that a discriminatory treatment is being met out to the employees working in the field, and involved in construction/repair of link roads, buildings for official and residential purposes of the staff etc. through the contractors. Lastly, the Court held that the denial of the benefit to the employees is certainly arbitrary in nature, and liable to be quashed. It was, thus, held that all the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board working for six days in a week, will be entitled to monetary compensation for the working Saturdays. For reference, paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment in Nirbhai's case (supra), are reproduced here-below: "7. It was, thus, held that all the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board working for six days in a week, will be entitled to monetary compensation for the working Saturdays. For reference, paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment in Nirbhai's case (supra), are reproduced here-below: "7. As per the written statement and the reasoning given by the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board while rejecting the representation of the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners have to work even on Saturdays on various projects undertaken by the Board. Punjab Mandi Board carries out various projects throughout the State, which include construction and repair of link roads, building for official and residential purposes of the staff etc. through contractors. It involves intensive labour and construction operations which are required to be continuously supervised by the field staff employed in the Mandi Board. These projects are required to be completed in a time bound schedule. The nature of duties and responsibilities of field staff is qualitatively different from those working in the administrative offices of the Mandi Board. Indisputably, all the petitioners are working in the construction and engineering wing of the Mandi Board. They are working on Saturdays, whereas the other employees who are employed in the offices of the Mandi Board are not working on Saturdays and are enjoying holidays. 8. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order Annexure P/5, denying this benefit to the petitioners is certainly arbitrary in nature and deserves to be quashed. All the employees of Punjab Mandi Board, like the petitioners, who are working for six days in a week would be entitled to monetary compensation for the working Saturdays by grant of extra wages for each Saturday they have discharged their duties." 205. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, further submitted that Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 (Punjab Mandi Board v. Nirbhai Singh), filed by the Punjab Mandi Board against the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 19.07.2005 [in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra)], came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court alongwith Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003, titled as Nagar Council, Kapurthala v. Davinder Kumar and others and other connected appeals, which were dismissed on 14.02.2008 [judgment reported as (2012) 10 SCC 280 : Law Finder Doc Id # 404450]. Relevant part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), is reproduced herebelow: " Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as we are of the opinion that for establishing their claim that they were entitled for working on Saturdays and Sundays, the workmen must establish their legal right in the proceedings under Section 33- (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 where for they had been granted liberty to move the appropriate Labour Court in this behalf by this Court in Municipal Employees Union (Regd) Sirhind & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. - (2000) 9 SCC 432 , the impugned Judgment would not come on the way of the appellants herein in raising all contentions before the Labour Court if and when such applications are filed. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to interfere with the impugned judgment at this stage. We may notice that in Civil Appeal No. 5873 of 2006 disposed of on 15.12.2006, this Court observed as under: " An application under Section 33-C (2) would be maintainable if the workmen has a legal right in relation to his claim. They will have to establish the same. In such a proceeding, undisputedly the appellants shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the Industrial Court. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, these appeals are disposed of." Thus, Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, submits that in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), granting opportunity to employees to establish their claim as per the Sirhind's case (supra), the benefit had been extended by awarding extra wages for Saturdays to the respondent-employees herein, in the writ petitions filed by the Punjab Mandi Board. Once, the appeal of the Punjab Mandi Board against the Division Bench judgment dated 19.07.2005, of this Court in Nirhbai's case (supra), has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court without causing any interference in favour of the respondents / applicants / employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, there will be no justification for setting aside the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunals in the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, by virtue of dismissal of the Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 (supra) and other connected appeals, vide judgment dated 14.02.2008, passed in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), right of extra wages for working on Saturdays has been confirmed in favour of the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, who are respondents in the aforementioned ten writ petitions. 206. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, also argued that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) has attainted finality and the Punjab Mandi Board is bound to follow the observations made in the judgment dated 19.07.2005, passed in the case of Nirbhai Singh (supra). As noticed hereabove also, even the appeal filed against the said judgment has already been dismissed. Thus, the judgment deciding the personal rights of the parties are to be considered judgment in personam and worth to be executed completely by taking it to the logical conclusion vis-a-vis the right of extra wages. And, even if the direction in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra) is claimed to be wrong, once it has attained finality, the Punjab Mandi Board is bound to abide by the said dictum in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association, (2006) 8 SCC 662 : 2007 (1) RSJ 111 . Therefore, there cannot be any other interpretation for the purpose of disturbing the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunals through orders, which have been impugned before this Court. 207. On hearing Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, this Court raised a straight query to him that in case, the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra) are accepted qua the employees, who are party before this Court only, would it not cause discrimination to those who never came before this Court or qua whom there is no judicial findings, to which Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, responded by submitting that it is a well settled proposition of law that "there is no relief for fence sitters". G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, responded by submitting that it is a well settled proposition of law that "there is no relief for fence sitters". To strengthen his argument, he relied upon the judgments of Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2016) 4 SCT 240 and Harpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 21560 of 2012, decided on 31.08.2015 : Docid # IndiaLawLib/ 1004538), and stated that relief may not be available to the fence sitters but to the litigants, who are aware of their rights and those who have approached to the Court, cannot be deprived of their rights. 208. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, however, could not address any substantial argument showing the similarity in facts and substance of the claim of respondent-employees of the Punjab Mandi Board vis-a-vis the facts and the claim raised by the employees of field staff, who were appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 209. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, was also unable to satisfy this Court that once, the Apex Court modified the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai's case (supra) by observing that the right of the employees can be raised through the application filed by them under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and every defence has been left open for the employer/Punjab Mandi Board/State of Punjab in such proceedings, how one can claim or assert that the Division Bench judgment in Nirbhai's case (supra), is a final verdict. Arguments by Mr. Virender Kumar Shukla, Advocate 210. Mr. Virender Kumar Shukla, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent-employees in CWP Nos. 11460, 16034, 16031 of 2013, 16015, 16945, 11418, 16944, and 13170, all of 2013, which have been filed by the State of Punjab or Director, State Transport Punjab. 211. Mr. Virender Kumar Shukla, Advocate, submitted that in all the aforementioned writ petitions, orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in the applications filed by the employees / respondents / applicants under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have been challenged. 212. Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate further submitted that the respondents / employees / applicants were posted in the Department of Roadways in the State of Punjab, as Drivers, Conductors or Sub Inspectors etc. 212. Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate further submitted that the respondents / employees / applicants were posted in the Department of Roadways in the State of Punjab, as Drivers, Conductors or Sub Inspectors etc. and had claimed extra wages for performing duty during Saturdays and other holidays, primarily on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Further submitted that such employees have been meted with discrimination vis-a-vis other employees of the said department, who are posted in the offices and are enjoying five working days in a week, as the duties assigned to the Drivers, Conductors, Sub Inspectors etc. is in the field area. But, they do not have any benefits for serving the Transport Department of State of Punjab during the course of Saturday or even the holidays. 213. Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate, briefly submitted that once the right has been created for everyone by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), there is no occasion for disturbing the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s) in favour of the respective employees, such as Conductors, Drivers and Sub Inspectors etc., allowing of their applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, merely on technical aspects. Thus, the writ petitions filed by the Transport Department Punjab/State of Punjab are required to be dismissed. 214. However, on being confronted by this Court as to how the employees/applicants have established before the concerned Industrial Tribunal that they have either any pre-existing right to claim extra wages or their conditions of service are akin to the field staff employees serving in the Octroi Department, who claimed extra wages for Saturdays in Sirhind's case (supra), Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate, could not give any convincing response to satisfy the conscious of this Court, so as to consider the claim of the respondent employees herein, on the basis of the underlined principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Arguments by Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate 215. Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, defended the cases of the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 06204, 06235, 06245, 06255 & 06725 of 2015; for respondent No(s). 2 in CWP Nos. 19414 & 19415 of 2014, 16982 of 2016, and 28835 of 2017; for respondent No(s). 2 to 4 in CWP No. 20708 of 2014; and for respondent No(s). 2 to 6 in CWP No. 19429 of 2014. 216. 06204, 06235, 06245, 06255 & 06725 of 2015; for respondent No(s). 2 in CWP Nos. 19414 & 19415 of 2014, 16982 of 2016, and 28835 of 2017; for respondent No(s). 2 to 4 in CWP No. 20708 of 2014; and for respondent No(s). 2 to 6 in CWP No. 19429 of 2014. 216. While defending the right of the employees to get extra wages qua their working on Saturdays in the field area, Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, argued that right of the employees stand already affirmed and established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Thus, their entitlement for starting of the recovery process through applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is beyond the scope of scrutiny, rather, it requires to be affirmed in view of the observations made in Sirhind's case (supra). Further submitted that rather, such a right is indefeasible and always existed in favour of the employees. It is only the means of recovery which is being questioned by the State of Punjab or its agencies by way of the writ petitions, before this Court. 217. Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, further submitted that once, the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra) has already affirmed the right of the employees, rightly or wrongly, the monetary relief is to be released immediately by the State Agencies without any delay. Thus, prays for the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by various Municipalities, different Departments of the State of Punjab, as well as respective Boards, by maintaining the legality of the applications filed by the employees, as already guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Broad Analysis of The Submissions Made By The Amicus Curiae & The Arguments Addressed By Respective Counsel For the Parties 218. There appears to be no dispute amongst the parties before this Court that the claim made by the employees, i.e. for extra wages in regard to the working on Saturdays/holidays, has to be examined keeping in mind as to whether there is already a pre-existing determination of said claim in favour of the agitating employees or not, before starting the proceedings of recovery under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which provision of law, in fact, is akin to the execution proceedings in pursuance to some money decree. 219. Undoubtedly, in view of the judgments cited by Mr. 219. Undoubtedly, in view of the judgments cited by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate - Amicus Curiae, while addressing his submissions, consistent interpretation of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for more than six decades, is that the application for recovery of the money for which an applicant is entitled, is maintainable, only if, such a right has already been adjudicated prior to the filing of the application. In other words, Section 33C(2) of the ID Act of 1947 is not meant for the purpose of determination of the right/entitlement of an applicant/employee 'for the first time', in regard to the money recoverable or to be paid to him by the employer. Learned Counsel for both the sides, i.e. employer and the employees, are ad idem to the proposition of law as has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. (supra), and thereafter followed in the subsequent judgments in the cases of Ganesh Razak (supra), Kankuben (supra), and Bombay Chemical India Ltd. (supra). Thus, it can be safely concluded from the submissions advanced by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Amicus Curiae, which have been reiterated by Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, that Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is only for the purpose of execution of a pre-determined and existing right. 220. Now this Court proceeds to examine as to whether the claim of the employees regarding extra wages in lieu of duty performed on Saturdays, being posted in the field area, has already been determined by any Authority/Forum/Judicial Forum/Commission or Court etc. 221. This Court finds that the employees who were posted and working outside the office, started assuming their right of extra wages for Saturdays and the holidays, only after the adjudication of the issue by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). In the said case, two sets of employees were before the Court, i.e. - (i) Employees, who were deputed for office working and were enjoying the Saturdays and Sundays as completely 'off day'; and (ii) Employees of the same department deputed on official duties in the field area, and also required to attend such duties on Saturdays or holidays, other than the desk work in the office, but were not paid any extra wages in lieu thereof. In Sirhind's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the duties of these two sets of employees are inter-changeable because any employee working in the office and enjoying two complete 'off days', i.e. Saturdays and Sundays, at the time of need or exigencies of Service, could be deputed for the field duty also, even on Saturdays and holidays. It was also concluded by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is a common seniority list of both sets of the employees and they are all governed by one set of Service Rules. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court firmly concluded that "the equals cannot be treated differently within one category of equals." Therefore, impliedly, all of the employees were found to enjoy 'two off days' per week. But in the case of set of the employees, who have been deputed in the field areas, during Saturdays or holidays, the Hon'ble Apex Court held them entitled for 'extra wages' for such days, by applying the 'principle of equality', enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, so as to avoid any kind of discriminatory treatment with one set of employees. Thus, it was only after holding their entitlement, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted them liberty to initiate recovery process through the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 222. Unfortunately, without understanding the very genesis of the principle of law discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), employees working in various Department, Boards and Municipalities in the State of Punjab, started assuming that the principle of law laid down in Sirhind's case (supra) is universal and applicable for every employee, whosoever is posted on field duty outside the office. Thereupon, claims were raised before the Government Authorities and also by filing writ petitions before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court). 223. Probably, due to lack of proper assistance in regard to the background of the Sirhind's case (supra), Division Bench of this Court while dealing with CWP Nos. 19852 and 19853 of 2002, vide its order dated 13.12.2002, considered the petitioners/employees therein at par with the employees in Sirhind's case (supra), and afforded them liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, by observing that the right to receive the monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest Court of the land. 224. 19852 and 19853 of 2002, vide its order dated 13.12.2002, considered the petitioners/employees therein at par with the employees in Sirhind's case (supra), and afforded them liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, by observing that the right to receive the monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest Court of the land. 224. It is on that basis, the employees throughout the State of Punjab serving with the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, Punjab Mandi Board, Punjab Transport Department, Health Department, Sanitary Department etc., started claiming extra wages for working on Saturdays, without even pleading or assisting the Court (High Court and Labour Court), whether their right is on equal footing or not vis-a-vis the employees in the Sirhind's case (supra). In some of the cases, applications filed by the employees have been accepted by the Court without examining the facts and circumstances, as has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). However, in majority of the orders, there is not an iota of discussion as to whether the factors, which have been taken note of, by the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. creating parity, exist or not. Against all such orders, the concerned employer(s) has filed number of writ petitions, which are pending adjudication before this Court. 225. Similarly, some of the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunals holding that there is no pre-existing right and, therefore, the claim raised through the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is not maintainable before it. In all such cases, the employees belonging to respective departments, have filed the writ petitions before this Court. 226. Countering the submissions addressed by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate-Amicus Curiae, as well as other counsel representing the employer(s), Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, relied upon the Division Bench judgment, dated 19.07.2005, of this Court in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra) and submitted that while deciding the said case, Hon'ble Division Bench noticed the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) and, thereafter, held the employees to be entitled for the same relief. Mr. Bal also argued that the judgment dated 19.07.2005, passed in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra), has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court because the appeal filed by the Punjab Mandi Board/employer has been dismissed. 227. Mr. Bal also argued that the judgment dated 19.07.2005, passed in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra), has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court because the appeal filed by the Punjab Mandi Board/employer has been dismissed. 227. This Court does not agree with the afore-noted contention of Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, for more than one reasons because in the judgment dated 14.09.2008, passed in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), alongwith which the appeal filed by the Punjab Mandi Board (being Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006), was dismissed, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted opportunity to both sides, i.e. the employees and the employer, for addressing their respective contentions during the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court. It has also been observed that workmen must establish their legal right in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Thus, it is clear that while dismissing Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 alongwith other connected appeals, vide judgment dated 14.09.2008, in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has even given chance to the employees to establish their right before the Labour Court by filing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 228. Broadly speaking, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh's case and the order dated 14.02.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 are to be read in conjunction. Thereafter, the logical conclusion/meaning has to be drawn by reading the two together. Looking at the order dated 14.02.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in no manner it can be concluded that the order passed in the Nirbhai Singh's case has attained finality so as to say that employees would not be required to establish their right before the Labour Court during the proceedings under Section 33 C (2) of the Act of 1947. The other judgments cited by Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, thus, are ignored for the time being. 229. This Court has also gone through the arguments and the judgments relied upon by Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, representing the employees. The other judgments cited by Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, thus, are ignored for the time being. 229. This Court has also gone through the arguments and the judgments relied upon by Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, representing the employees. His attempt to defend the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, qua the employees who are being represented by him, is not satisfying much. In none of the judgments, the basis of reaching to the conclusion by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), i.e. principle of 'equality to avoid discrimination amongst equals', as covered under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, has ever been discussed in its true perspective. Therefore, after examining all the judgments and hearing the submissions addressed from all the sides, this Court is of the view that until an employee proves himself to be completely covered at par with the facts and circumstances enumerated in Sirhind's case (supra), it cannot be concluded that the right qua 'extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays' has already been determined in favour of such employees. 230. Not only this, the employees have to first plead in specific in the application and then to prove with the evidence, so as to reach to the conclusion that the employees of the office staff of any of the departments are the same, who can be deputed in the field area i.e. outside the office even on Saturdays/holidays. Thus, in such proceedings, they have to prove that by virtue of implication of the statutory service rules, nature of the service, any other standing orders, instructions or guidelines issued by the competent authority, they form one unit, like the one that has been found by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 231. In the absence of any such pleading and evidence, it would not be possible for any Court to declare that any discrimination has been done with different employees within one establishment, who otherwise form one class. 231. In the absence of any such pleading and evidence, it would not be possible for any Court to declare that any discrimination has been done with different employees within one establishment, who otherwise form one class. In the cases where applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have been allowed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, not even the applicable statutory rules governing the conditions of services of the employees have either been brought on record or looked into, before reaching to similar conclusion, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhinds case (supra). Probably, such applications have been allowed only with the assumption that the rights and entitlement of extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays, in respect of all the employees working in the field area, have already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). It has further been assumed that the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), is a judgment in 'rem', thus is applicable to all the employees throughout the State. 232. Some of the statutory provisions, such as Fire Brigade Rules and the Standing Orders formulated thereunder for the members of the Fire Brigade; Safai Karamchari Rules which are applicable to the members of the Service to which they are applicable; various provisions of the Transport Workers Act, in regard to certain categories of employees have already been noticed and discussed by this Court in the earlier part of this judgment. Specific provisions under the Safai Karamchari Rules are there, which tells that the members of the Service governed by said rules, shall be required to work for six days in a week. Similarly, while giving due consideration and weightage to the arduous nature of duties of the members of the Fire Brigade, special provisions have been made to compensate them by allowing extra special leaves and various other incentives, which are not admissible to the employees of other services. In the same way, under the Transport Workers Act, specific provisions have been made only to benefit the Motor Transport Workers. 233. Otherwise also, there are certain categories of services such as Health, Fire Brigade and Civil, Public and Electrical wings of the Public Works Department etc., where the requirement of such services can arise at any point of time during the week. 233. Otherwise also, there are certain categories of services such as Health, Fire Brigade and Civil, Public and Electrical wings of the Public Works Department etc., where the requirement of such services can arise at any point of time during the week. There appears to be no justification in saying that services of a particular employee would not be required for the department of Public Health, electricity or Fire Brigade on Saturday or other holidays. 234. After noticing the factual and legal background right from the time of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), the clear position before this Court is that until the employee of the field staff forms a common group of service with equal treatment of rules and circumstances applicable to the office staff, employee cannot claim for extra wages for sixth working day i.e. Saturday or else, there should be a specific provision in the Rules to pay such extra wages to such an employee in lieu of his working on Saturday/holiday. 235. After the whole discussion made here-in-above, it can be finally concluded that either the factual position in the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, be at par with the principle of law and facts as in the case of Sirhind (supra) or there should already be a pre-existing order/rule/notification in that regard to say that the employees are entitled for extra wages for the 'off day'. In the absence of any such situation, available on record, any employee from the field staff would not be entitled to say that he is required to work only for five days in a week. Thus, the case of every employee has to pass through the test of the Sirhind's case (supra), so that the employee may claim his right or entitlement for extra wages for working on Saturdays or other off days. Final Conclusion of The Writ Petitions; According To The Blocks / Categories Formed By This Court 236. After recording final conclusion in the last para, this Court is satisfied that the stage is now set to analyse the writ petitions, according to the blocks/categories of cases, which have already been made by this Court after undertaking the exercise of scrutiny and segregation of all the 511 writ petitions. Block/Category of Fire Brigade [Annexure: 'B', Total 127 cases, Sr. Nos. 1 to 127] 237. Block/Category of Fire Brigade [Annexure: 'B', Total 127 cases, Sr. Nos. 1 to 127] 237. Annexure 'B' contains the details and other particulars of 127 civil writ petitions. Out of which, petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 have been filed by the employees of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, challenging the common order dated 06.09.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, whereby total 67 applications were decided by the Industrial Tribunal. Remaining petitions i.e. from Sr. Nos. 53 to 127, have been filed by the employer - Municipalities, i.e. Municipal Corporation Patiala (Sr. Nos. 53 to 95); Municipal Council Sangrur (Sr. Nos. 96 to 103); Municipal Corporation Ludhiana (Sr. Nos. 104 to 107); Municipal Corporation Moga (Sr. Nos. 108 to 112); Municipal Council Rajpura (Sr. Nos. 113 to 114); Municipal Council Fatehgarh Sahib (Sr. No. 115); Municipal Council Sri. Muktsar Sahib (Sr. No. 116), Municipal Council Kotakpura (Sr No. 117 to 119); Nagar Council Kotakpura (Sr. No. 120); Municipal Corporation SAS Nagar (Sr. Nos. 121 and 122); Municipal Council Derabassi (Sr. Nos. 123 to 126); and Municipal Council Malerkotla (Sr. No. 127). Factual matrix of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 27 of Annexure 'B': 238. As already noticed above, 52 writ petitions have been filed by the employees/workmen, who are/were employed in the Department of Fire Brigade Services, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. 239. It seems that having placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sirhind's case (supra), and claiming that it has been held in the said judgment that the employees who have worked on Saturdays, whereas their colleagues enjoyed holiday, are entitled for extra wages for working on Saturday, all the employees in these 52 writ petitions, approached the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking determination of the amount of wages and payment thereof. Such applications were initially filed in the year 2008, which were clubbed together. But in the year 2013, the authorized representative of the applicants therein withdrew the applications with a statement that similar set of employees who were working in the Fire Brigade Department of Municipal Council, Sangrur, filed applications before the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, which were decided on 27.07.2012, in favour of the workmen and whatsoever the final result of the said controversy would be, further legal remedy will be availed by the petitioners herein. 240. 240. Further claiming that in the case of employees of the Municipal Council, Sangrur, the order dated 27.07.2012, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, has been implemented by making payment to the staff posted at Fire Brigade Department, Municipal Council, Sangrur, for working on Saturday, therefore, the said applicants moved fresh applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, for determination of the amount for working on Saturdays, for the last three years from the date of previous applications. 241. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, before the Tribunal, besides taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, suppression of true and material facts, estoppels and cause of action etc., it was pleaded that the applicants (petitioners herein in 52 writ petitions) have got no pre-adjudged and preexisting right in their favour to seek the relief as claimed by them in the applications. Further, it is pleaded that as per terms and conditions of appointment, rules and standing orders of the government, as well as judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the applicants are not entitled for any relief. At no point of time, they had ever worked more than their actual duty, as required under the service rules applicable to them. It is specifically pleaded that under Para No. 20 of the Standing Orders, all the members of the Fire Brigade Staff shall be entitled for 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave, as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of gazetted holidays, keeping in view the peculiar nature of their duties. Such special casual leaves are added to individual's casual leave account. Moreover, one day weekly off is allowed to all the Fire Brigade employees on rotation basis. Denying of causing any discrimination, the relief claimed by the applicants/petitioner has been denied. 242. No replication was filed and on the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in Application No. 15 of 2014, titled as "Anil Luthra v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and another", with which the remaining applications were clubbed together:- "1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed for? OPA. 2. Whether the application is liable to be dismissed? OPR. 3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Tribunal" OPR. Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed for? OPA. 2. Whether the application is liable to be dismissed? OPR. 3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Tribunal" OPR. 5. Whether the applicant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present application? OPR. 6. Whether the applicant has no cause of action to file the present application? OPR. 7. Whether the application is an abuse of the process of law? OPR. 8. Relief." 243. In support of the claim, the applicants themselves appeared in the witness box and tendered their respective affidavits along with documents, as detailed in Para No. 5 of the impugned order, dated 06.09.2016, passed by the Tribunal. 244. Even in the cross-examination, applicants have admitted that they have been given special casual leave for 25 days every year on account of the work done by them in the Fire Brigade department. Further admitted that they have been getting one day weekly rest also. 245. Other than this, Raj Kumar, Clerk, from the office of Nagar Council, Sangrur, appeared as AW66, and produced the summoned record i.e. copy of judgment Ex. A71 and document Ex. A72, containing other record and proved that Nagar Council, Sangrur has made the payment to the workers regarding the work done by them on Saturdays. However, in cross-examination, he denied knowledge about issuance of any directions by the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, to the Municipal Councils, with regard to the making of payment to the workers for working on Saturdays. He also denied of having any knowledge that whether the aforesaid payment was made on the basis of judgment Ex. A71 or any other direction of High Court or Supreme Court. He also could not specify that how much amount was paid to the workers at Sangrur. 246. On behalf of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Kashmir Singh, A.D.F.O., Fire Brigade, appeared as RW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A, reiterating the stand already taken in the written statement. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that special casual leave of 25 days is provided to the applicant/petitioners against Gazetted holidays in a year, and there are no special casual leaves for working on Saturdays. RW1/A, reiterating the stand already taken in the written statement. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that special casual leave of 25 days is provided to the applicant/petitioners against Gazetted holidays in a year, and there are no special casual leaves for working on Saturdays. Further, he admitted that employees of other departments such as House Tax Department and Estate Office, who perform duty in the field, are enjoying the holidays of Saturdays. Although, he admitted the fact of performing duty on Saturdays by the applicants/petitioners, but he categorically denied the suggestion that they have been discriminated by not giving them salary in lieu of the work done on Saturdays. 247. After discussing the entire evidence led by respective parties, and by placing reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in the case of Nagar Council, Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others, LPA No. 1178 of 2015 (O&M), decided on 26.04.2016, which was tendered by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, the Tribunal has held that the field staff cannot seek parity with the office staff and they are not entitled to the amount claimed. Accordingly, dismissed all the applications. Factual matrix of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure 'B') 248. It has been noticed that the concerned employees, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure 'B', being members of the Fire Brigade, also filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. However, the claim made and the relief sought by them, is slightly different than others. 249. In these cases, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, has filed the writ petitions for setting aside of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, whereby respective employees have been granted compensation for working on Saturdays and also overtime for 4 hours per day alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, for the period in question in each case. 250. In these cases, the employees, were then working as members of the Fire Brigade in the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and required to work for 8 hours in a day with the entitlement of weekly off/rest. However, they were directed to work regularly seven days in a week without any break or rest, that too for twelve hours in a day instead of eight hours. However, they were directed to work regularly seven days in a week without any break or rest, that too for twelve hours in a day instead of eight hours. In this manner, the employer had taken four hours extra duty from them on daily basis. In their applications, the concerned employees claimed that they were held entitled to receive the overtime wages, for working on weekly off/rest days and double of the wages for working extra four hours daily, and wages were paid to them as over-time upto 13.08.2007, but thereafter, same was stopped. They continuously worked up-till September 2009 and represented to the authorities also for payment of such wages/over-time, but in vain. 251. Thereupon the Employees' Union filed CWP No. 1221 of 2010 (Municipal Fire Brigade Employees Union, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab & others), claiming benefit of 'over-time', which was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice dated 26.02.2009. 252. The claim of 'over-time' of the Employees Union was rejected by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, vide order dated 22.04.2010, and therefore, CWP No. 13137 of 2011 (Jugraj Singh & others v. State of Punjab), challenging the order dated 22.04.2010, was filed in this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), but the same was disposed of on being withdrawn, vide order dated 02.08.2011, with liberty to avail alternative remedy under the law. 253. Employees/respondents in these writ petitions again represented to the authorities to grant 'over-time' for making them to work for 12 hours in a day. But no heed was paid. 254. With the aforementioned averments, applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, were filed before Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, for grant of benefit of over-time wages for working on weekly off/rest days from July, 2007 to September, 2009, and for double the wages for working four hours overtime in a day from 14.08.2007 onwards. 255. While adducing evidence, applicants in their affidavits, did not make a whisper about the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case or any claim for extra wages for Saturday/holiday working. 256. 255. While adducing evidence, applicants in their affidavits, did not make a whisper about the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case or any claim for extra wages for Saturday/holiday working. 256. After noticing the entire matrix and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 19518 of 2002 (Ram Karan & others v. State of Punjab & others), dated 10.12.2002, as well as the law laid down in Sirhind's case, the Tribunal allowed the applicants claim for 'over-time', by concluding that '...the applicant is granted compensation for weekly off/rest days he has worked from July, 2007 to September, 2009 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. October, 2009 till the date of realization.' Factual matrix of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 53 to 103 & 108 to 127 of Annexure 'B') 257. In most of the cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 53 to 103, and 108 to 127, the employees have filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, on the strength of orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the writ petitions, which were initially filed by them, such as CWP No. 15831 of 2002 (Isher Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others); CWP No. 20433 of 2002 (Sudershan Jain & others v. State of Punjab & others); CWP No. 19027 of 2002 (Gurcharan Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others); and CWP No. 17042 of 2002 (Jaswinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others). It was also contended before the Industrial Tribunal that even the appeals preferred against the judgment/orders passed in the said cases, were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the respective Industrial Tribunals allowed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 258. There cannot be any doubt that services under the Fire Brigade Wing are essential by character and employment of the members of the Fire Brigade is governed by Fire Brigade Rules (supra) as well as general Standing Orders framed thereunder, and the relevant provisions in this regard have already been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. 259. After reading of the Standing Orders framed under the provisions of the Fire Brigade Rules (supra), it is emphatically clear that number of extra incentives and service benefits are available to the members of the Fire Brigade. 259. After reading of the Standing Orders framed under the provisions of the Fire Brigade Rules (supra), it is emphatically clear that number of extra incentives and service benefits are available to the members of the Fire Brigade. This includes-supply of uniforms at the cost of the Municipality; payment of Uniform Upkeep Allowance; providing of rent free accommodation within the fire station premises or as near to the fire station as possible and if not provided in lieu thereof, house rent at the rates admissible to other members of Government; free water and free electricity; entitlement of 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty; provisioning for outdoor games, indoor games, newspapers, magazines and other periodicals of interest relating to fire service; and risk allowance. The afore-noted benefits are not admissible to other employees who are working in other Municipal Services. 260. In this manner, the members of the Fire Brigade working under the control of the Municipalities have already been compensated adequately, keeping in view the rigorous and arduous nature of their duty, which requires to be performed 24 x 7. Thus, such employees cannot allege any sort of discrimination, inasmuch as, the benefits which are attached to their Service and are not available to those who are working in offices and enjoy Saturdays as off-days. Therefore, the cases of members of the Fire Brigade stand on an altogether different footing. 261. When the cases of the Fire Brigade are tested on the touchstone of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), it is found by this Court that there is no comparison between two sets of employees. There is not even a single evidence to show that the conditions of service of the members of Fire Brigade are one and the same as are applicable to those employees of the Municipalities, who enjoy Saturdays as a 'off-days'. It is neither the case of the members of the Fire Brigade employees that there is a common seniority amongst them, vis-avis other set/group of employees, or their 'Service' is inter-changeable, i.e. they can be deputed in the offices also. It is neither the case of the members of the Fire Brigade employees that there is a common seniority amongst them, vis-avis other set/group of employees, or their 'Service' is inter-changeable, i.e. they can be deputed in the offices also. Once, these two broad parameters are not fulfilled, this Court fails to understand how the members of the Fire Brigade can equate themselves at par with the employees of the Octroi, who were before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 262. Further, while deciding the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, it has been noticed by the respective Industrial Tribunals that the employees have claimed extra wages for working on Saturdays by basing their claim on the letter dated 07.04.1980 (supra), issued by the Punjab Government, whereby it was declared that all the offices in the Punjab Government shall adopt the practice of five working days a week. On said account, it would be necessary for this Court to notice Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775 dated 02.03.1994, which was circulated to the Municipalities, in continuation of letter No. 6/10/6PP 111/20107, dated 03.11.1993, wherein it has been explicitly clarified that employees working in the field, were entitled for only Sunday holiday and not for two holidays in a week. Conjoint reading of the notification dated 07.04.1980 and subsequent Memo./letter dated 02.03.1994 (ibid) would mean that at one point of time i.e. in the year 1980, State of Punjab declared five days as working in a week in its Public Offices, without realizing that certain employees were deployed in the field area also. However, subsequent thereto, a clarificatory circular was issued by the Punjab State Government, making it clear that the field staff would be entitled only for one day as holiday in a week. 263. Other than this, it is also relevant to notice that in all the 127 writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 127 of Annexure 'B', respective applicants have claimed the extra wages for working on Saturday/holiday for having worked for such days, much after the issuance of letter dated 02.03.1994 (supra) whereby, Punjab Government had already made it clear that field staff would be entitled only for one holiday in a week. This position is fortified from Annexure 'B', wherein the period for which extra wages claimed has been shown. This position is fortified from Annexure 'B', wherein the period for which extra wages claimed has been shown. The extra wages by all the employees are claimed from the year 1999 and thereafter. In fact, it is neither the pleaded case or argued by the employees before this Court that the letter dated 02.03.1994 has ever been challenged or ever withdrawn by the Government at any later stage. 264. Further, it is also not the pleaded case that the employees herein are not paid monthly salary and are rather paid the wages for the days on which they have actually performed their duty in the field areas. In other words, admitted position is that every such employee/applicant is already getting monthly salary and still on the basis of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) want some extra wages for working on Saturdays in the shape of compensation. Such a mindset/plea would not be of any help to the employees belonging to the Fire Brigade, because the nature of duty of such employees is based on unforeseen events and for practical purposes, such employees are supposed to be ready for being deputed for same field duty to cater to any exigency that may arise in a given situation, i.e. to work as fire extinguisher in the manner they are deployed to perform. 265. Even, the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, while deciding applications, which are subject matter of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 of Annexure 'B', has also noticed the decision in Nagar Council, Samrala's case (supra) after the same being tendered by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, and the applications have been accordingly dismissed. 266. When the facts of the cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure 'B' are examined, it comes out that there, members of the Fire Brigade were agitating their claim for grant of 'over-time' for performing of four hours extra duty. According to them, the said benefit was extended to them up till a certain period, but was stopped thereafter. Raising the grievance, the Employees' Union approached this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) by way of CWP No. 1221 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, to decide the legal notice. According to them, the said benefit was extended to them up till a certain period, but was stopped thereafter. Raising the grievance, the Employees' Union approached this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) by way of CWP No. 1221 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, to decide the legal notice. Thereafter, by passing a specific order dated 22.04.2010 (Annexure P-1 attached with CWP No. 16319 of 2018), said claim of 'over-time' was rejected. Though the said order was assailed in CWP No. 13137 of 2011, but the same was withdrawn by the petitioners therein, with liberty to avail alternative remedy under law. In this way, the order dated 22.04.2010, passed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, qua claim of the members of the Fire Brigade, working under its control, for grant of 'over-time' as compensation, attained finality. However, while allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, it seems that the Tribunal despite noticing the entire facts, assumed and presumed that the claim of the employees before it, was for extra wages for working on Saturdays and holidays. And, by misreading of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), allowed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 267. While dealing with these cases, i.e. mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure 'B', this Court is conscious about the various provisions of the Punjab CSR, which have already been referred in detail and realised that there are specific provisions for grant of compensatory allowance; Honorarium; and special pay. Provisions of the Punjab CSR also prescribe the conditions and circumstances, under which these can be granted to the employees. 268. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that in the Punjab CSR, neither there is any definition defining the meaning of words 'extra wages' nor there exists any specific rule for grant or payment of such 'extra wages' to the employees. As per the express provisions of the Punjab CSR, for any extra ordinary duty or special work done by the employees, the competent authority can grant or extend the benefit of compensatory allowance, honorarium and special pay, in addition to their 'pay'. As per the express provisions of the Punjab CSR, for any extra ordinary duty or special work done by the employees, the competent authority can grant or extend the benefit of compensatory allowance, honorarium and special pay, in addition to their 'pay'. Nothing has been argued or shown to this Court that after rejection of the claim or otherwise, the employees have ever agitated their claim for grant of aforementioned monetary benefits, i.e. in the nature of compensatory allowance or honorarium or special pay in lieu of the duty performed by them on Saturdays/holidays. Rather, their sole claim is for payment of 'extra wages' for working on Saturdays, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 269. Moreover, Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, also empowers the Government to assign tasks to its employees as deemed necessary by the appropriate authority, without the need for additional compensation. Thus, the Government retains the discretion to utilize the employees' time, as it deems fit within the framework of their duties. 270. Broadly speaking, since the employees/applicants, who failed in establishing their right for extra wages for Saturday working, vis-a-vis the employees who succeeded before Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), wherein, set of employees deputed in the field area and the set of employees deputed in the office of the Octroi Department are found to perform interchangeable duties and also being governed by the same set of rules by forming a common seniority, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the members of the Fire Brigade, claiming themselves to be deployed for field duty, are entitled for extra wages for Saturdays/holiday working. Thus, the claim raised by them through the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is hereby rejected. 271. Accordingly, the writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 of Annexure 'B' are dismissed and the writ petitions from Serial Nos. 53 to 127 of Annexure 'B', filed by respective Municipalities are hereby allowed. Resultantly, all the applications filed by the employees being worthless, stand dismissed. Block/Category of Octroi & Octroi + Fire Brigade [Annexure: 'C', Total 3 cases, Sr. Nos. 128 to 130] 272. In this block/category of writ petitions, there are three cases, which have been detailed at Annexure 'C' to this judgment, i.e. Sr. Nos. 128 to 130. CWP No. 11624 of 2015 273. Block/Category of Octroi & Octroi + Fire Brigade [Annexure: 'C', Total 3 cases, Sr. Nos. 128 to 130] 272. In this block/category of writ petitions, there are three cases, which have been detailed at Annexure 'C' to this judgment, i.e. Sr. Nos. 128 to 130. CWP No. 11624 of 2015 273. Case mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure 'C' (CWP No. 11624 of 2015), has been filed by the Municipal Council, Dera Bassi, against the common order dated 13.05.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, vide which while deciding 29 applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, claim of the employees working in the Octroi wing of the Municipal Council, Dera Bassi, has been allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment, dated 10.10.2002, passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in CWP No. 16326 of 2002 (Swaran Singh Walia and others v. State of Punjab and others), as well as that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). In this case, various employees claimed the benefit of working on Saturday, in terms of Sirhind's case (supra), on the ground that they were also working in the Octroi wing of the Municipal Council, Dera Bassi. Having gone through the factual particulars, as detailed in CWP No. 11624 of 2015, there appears to be no dispute that the applicants, who moved applications (as per the details mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure 'C'), were/are working in the Octroi Department/Wing on different posts such as Peon, Clerk, Sweeper, Sanitary Inspector, Plumber, Helper, Junior Assistant, and Restorer etc. CWP No. 14253 of 2002 274. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14253 of 2002 (mentioned at Serial No. 129 of Annexure 'C') has been filed by 27 petitioners. As per averment made in para 2 of the writ petition, they were Class III and Class IV employees and working on the posts of Octroi Clerks, Junior Assistant, Sewerman, Fireman and Drivers etc., in the Nagar Council, Kapurthala. They filed the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to extend the petitioners benefits in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sirhind's case (supra). They filed the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to extend the petitioners benefits in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sirhind's case (supra). It has further been prayed that respondents be also directed to grant the petitioners benefits of pay/wages for each of the Saturday and other gazetted holidays on which they worked while their colleagues in the offices were permitted to enjoy them as holidays, alongwith all consequential benefits. 275. As per own showing, at the time of filing of the writ petition, some of the petitioners were working in the Octroi wing as Octroi Clerks/Junior Assistant/Inspector (e.g. petitioner Nos. 1 to 12 and 25), whereas some of them were members of the Fire Brigade (e.g. petitioner Nos. 13 to 24). No service particulars of petitioner Nos. 26 and 27 are forthcoming. 276. Further, case of the petitioners in CWP No. 14253 of 2002, is that some of the employees of Nagar Council, Kapurthala, were working in the fields/Octroi Check Posts, whereas other set of employees were working in the offices. It has been claimed by the petitioners that terms and conditions of appointment, and scale of pay of both sets of employees are same. The petitioners herein have espoused their case by pleading that when their counter-parts and other categories of Class-III and Class-IV employees are made to work in the office side, they enjoy the benefit of five days week with every Saturday and Sunday as holidays, besides other gazetted holidays. Contrary to that, the petitioners being posted in the field/Octroi barriers were made to work for six days in a week. It is alleged that Nagar Council had not promulgated any bye-laws where the working conditions of the staff members/petitioners were uniformly prescribed to be six days in a week. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that two sets of officials being equal, cannot be seen differently, rather they are entitled for equal treatment in the matter of holidays or wages for the extra work done by them, in the terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Thus, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that two sets of officials being equal, cannot be seen differently, rather they are entitled for equal treatment in the matter of holidays or wages for the extra work done by them, in the terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). To strengthen their case, the petitioners also placed reliance on two orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the cases of Angrez Singh, Octroi Clerk and 64 others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 15307 of 1993, decided on 12.10.2000, annexure P-3 with CWP-14253- 2002), and Tara Chand, Safai Sewak and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 19039 of 1996, decided on 12.03.2001, annexure P-4 with CWP-14253-2002). 277. Still further, the petitioners herein, in para No. 11 of the writ petition, have given details of CWP Nos. 6666 of 2001 (Pritam Singh and others v. State of Punjab); 7222 of 2001 (Water Supply and Sewerage Employees Union v. State of Punjab); 7223 of 2001 (Punjab State Karamchari Dal, Sangrur v. State of Punjab and others); 7409 of 2001 (Municipal Safai Karamchari Union v. State of Punjab); and 7589 of 2001 (Nagar Council Safai Sewak Union v. State of Punjab), wherein also identical relief was sought. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Copy of one such order dated 05.09.2001, passed in CWP No. 6666 of 2001, has been placed on record as Annexure P-6 alongwith CWP No. 14253 of 2002. 278. The petitioners have also pleaded that after disposal of other cases, i.e. Jagan Nath and others v. State of Punjab' (CWP No. 5728 of 2001, decided on 18.09.2001), and 'Dilbagh Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others' (CWP No. 10343 of 1993, decided on 18.12.2000), the petitioners of CWP No. 10343 of 1993, filed applications before the Labour Court, which were disposed of by the Lok Adalat of the Labour Court, with directions to the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, to make payment to the applicants by 22.09.2001, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. (Annexure P-7 with CWP No. 14253 of 2002). 279. 279. The petitioners have also placed on record two more orders dated 07.02.2002 and 14.05.2002, passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the cases, titled as 'Sukhdev Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others' (CWP No. 7252 of 1996, decided on 07.02.2002, D.B.), and Baljit Singh v. Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Local Bodies and others (CWP No. 3640 of 2002, decided on 14.05.2002, D.B.). CWP No. 17042 of 2002 280. CWP No. 17042 of 2002 (Sr. No. 130 of Annexure 'C'), has been filed by 57 employees, out of which petitioner Nos. 1 to 21 were working or retired, as members of the Fire Brigade in the Municipal Council, Kotkapura, District Faridkot; petitioner Nos. 22 to 39 were members of the Fire Brigade in Municipal Council, Ferozepur; petitioner No. 40 was working as Fireman in Municipal Council, Muktsar; whereas petitioner Nos. 41 to 51, who were Octroi Clerks/Peon/Pump Driver, were working in Nagar Council, Banur, District Patiala; and likewise petitioner Nos. 52 to 57 were also discharging their duties in the Octroi wing of Municipal Council, Derabassi, as Octroi Clerks and Sanitary Supervisor. The relief sought and facts pleaded by the petitioners in this case, are almost similar to the one as have already been recorded hereabove while dealing with CWP No. 14253 of 2002. Accordingly, for the sake of brevity, the same are not reiterated. 281. While proceeding further, it is important to mention here that both the aforementioned writ petitions, i.e. CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and CWP No. 17042 of 2002, came up for consideration of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) on 05.09.2002 and 24.10.2002, respectively, and the same were disposed of by passing similar orders, as were passed in several other writ petitions, such as CWP Nos. 15831 of 2002, 19852 & 19853 of 2002 etc. At the cost of repetition, order dated 24.10.2002, passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, is reproduced as under:- " CWP No. 17042 of 2002 Jaswinder Singh and others. .....Petitioners. Versus The State of Punjab and others. Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioners. ..... 15831 of 2002, 19852 & 19853 of 2002 etc. At the cost of repetition, order dated 24.10.2002, passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, is reproduced as under:- " CWP No. 17042 of 2002 Jaswinder Singh and others. .....Petitioners. Versus The State of Punjab and others. Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioners. ..... Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral) 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 & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors - Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 decided on 15.3.2000 ( Annexure P-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 reads 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 section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purposes of proper computation in respect of the monetary benefit arising therefrom. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has given finality to the dispute between the parties. 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 government 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 & another v. The State of Haryana & Ors. Civil Writ Petition No.4382 of 2002 decided on 21.3.2002. In this regard, detailed directions were issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satbir Singh & another v. The State of Haryana & 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. In any case, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 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 appears 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 respondents would not compel the petitioners to take to take recourse to such procedural law. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- (Swatanter Kumar) Judge Sd/- (S.S. Saron ) Judge Oct. 24, 2002" 282. Now the question arises is, how these two writ petitions, i.e. CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and CWP No. 17042 of 2002, have been revived again, once the same were already disposed of vide the aforementioned orders dated 05.09.2002 and 24.10.2002, respectively. 283. It may be recalled here that challenging the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), wherein writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the judgment in Sirhind's case (supra), number of appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court were filed by various Municipalities, departments of the State and Boards etc.. All such appeals were tagged alongwith the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra) [Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003 being the lead case], which were decided on 14.02.2008. 284. All such appeals were tagged alongwith the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra) [Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003 being the lead case], which were decided on 14.02.2008. 284. It is also important to mention here that another bunch of appeals involving the issue of 'parity in employment and equal treatment', was also pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Charanjit Singh and others (Civil Appeal No. 6562 of 2002 and other connected cases, decided on 05.10.2005, reported as (2006) 9 SCC 321 ), being the lead case. The said controversy reached the Hon'ble Apex Court after the decision rendered by another 3 Judges Full Bench of this Court (Swatanter Kumar, Amar Bir Singh Gill and J.S. Narang, JJ.) in the case of Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 14056 of 1999, decided on 13.12.2001, reported as (2002) 1 SLR 694 (FB) : ILR (2002) 2 P&H 35 : Law Finder Doc Id # 72444). 285. When the orders dated 05.09.2002 and 24.10.2002, passed in CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and CWP No. 17042 of 2002, were challenged in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, instead of tagging of the same with the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra) and other bunch of appeals, the same were clubbed alongwith other set of bunch of appeals, i.e. with the case of Charanjit Singh (supra) [Civil Appeal No. 6562 of 2002], probably with the assumption that the aforementioned issue of 'parity in employment and equal treatment', is also involved in these two cases, i.e. CWP Nos. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002. 286. Interestingly, 3 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the Charanjit Singh's case (supra), did not concur with the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar's case (supra), and held that 'persons employed on contract cannot claim equal pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work', whereas Full Bench of this Court had disposed of the cases which were before it by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Accordingly, while disposing of all the appeals before it, 3 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court remitted all the matters back to the High Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), alongwith these two writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. Accordingly, while disposing of all the appeals before it, 3 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court remitted all the matters back to the High Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), alongwith these two writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002. This is how, these two writ petitions are on the Board of this Court, for final adjudication. 287. Before proceeding ahead, one more thing that needs to be highlighted is that during the course of scrutiny of files of various writ petitions, which are being decided by this Court, it came to surface that number of employees/applicants while moving their respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal, have pleaded that their right to claim extra wages in lieu of work on Saturdays, has already been determined on the strength of orders passed in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, whereas the same is still pending final adjudication before this Court, in the manner as mentioned here-above. Meaning thereby, either the employees were under some misconception that the order dated 24.10.2002, passed in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, has also attained finality after passing of the judgment in Sirhind's case (supra) or they have deliberately concealed the true facts before the Industrial Tribunal(s), about pendency of the said case. 288. Having gone through the factual particulars of CWP No. 11624 of 2015, there is no dispute that the applicants, who moved applications (as per the details mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure 'C'), were/are working in the Octroi Department/Wing on different posts such as Peon, Clerk, Sweeper, Sanitary Inspector, Plumber Helper, Junior Assistant, and Restorer etc. 289. In this case, another question arises for consideration is whether other set of employees working in the Octroi wing than the persons who were posted as Octroi Clerks and Peons, would also be entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). To answer the said question, it would be necessary to go back to the observations recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment in Sirhind's case (supra), already reproduced above. 290. To answer the said question, it would be necessary to go back to the observations recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment in Sirhind's case (supra), already reproduced above. 290. As already noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the duties assigned to the Class IV/Peon and Class III/Clerks are interchangeable, they form a one group and are entitled for extra wages for working on Saturdays, when the employee posted at particular time in the offices, enjoys Saturday as complete off day. 291. CWP No. 11624 of 2015 deserves to be dismissed by maintaining the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Even otherwise also, the Industrial Tribunal has recorded its finding that except of the applicants Jaswant Singh and Varinder Singh, all others had filed CWP No. 16326 of 2002, which was decided vide order dated 10.10.2002, by granting liberty therein to file application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Findings recorded in paragraph Nos. 16 to 23 of the impugned order dated 13.05.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, in this regard would be relevant. However, for the sake brevity same need not to be reproduced here again. Since all the applicants (who are numbered as respondents No. 1 to 29 in CWP No. 11624 of 2015) are belonging to the Octroi Department, whose rights have already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (Supra), thus, CWP No. 11624 of 2015, filed by the Municipal Council, Derabassi (Mohali) is hereby dismissed. 292. Having gone through the paper book of CWP No. 14253 of 2002, this Court has found a vague averment made by 27 petitioners, in paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition, which reads as under: "2. That the Petitioners are Class III & Class IV employees working on the posts of Octori Clerks, Jr. Asstt., Sewerman, Fireman, Drivers, etc. working in the Nagar Council, respondent No.3. ......" Undoubtedly, a document in the shape of Annexure P-1, has been appended with the writ petition, wherein except for mentioning the name, designation and date of joining, no other particulars as regards to the Service Rules or Standing orders etc., governing their conditions of service, or to which 'Service' they actually belong, have been mentioned. Thus, mentioning of the formal particulars, as given in Annexure P-1, cannot be said to be complete and exhaustive. Thus, mentioning of the formal particulars, as given in Annexure P-1, cannot be said to be complete and exhaustive. The petitioners cannot claim in air that their conditions of service are at par with other set of employees working in offices, who enjoy five day week. Similarly, in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, there are total 57 petitioners and similar is the situation regarding detailing of the facts therein. 293. As already explained hereabove, in both the writ petitions, there are two categories of employees, (i) who were/are working in the Octroi Wing of the Municipalities, and (ii) who are members of the Fire Brigade. And, by no stretch of imagination it can be said or claimed that they are governed by same set of Rules. 294. This Court, while dealing with the cases of the members of the Fire Brigade (under Block/Category-1, Sr. Nos. 1 to 127 of Annexure 'B'), has already recorded its findings and conclusions in detail (refer para Nos. 258 to 270), who were working under different Municipalities. And, is of the firm opinion that the same can be safely borrowed and applied to the facts and merits of these two writ petitions also, for those employees/petitioners, who were/are serving as members of the Fire Brigade, attached with the respective Municipalities. Thus, for deciding the issue raised by them, no further reasoning is required. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that those employees/petitioners, who are working in the Fire Brigade, and have approached this Court, by filing CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002, respectively, have no case for seeking 'extra wages' in lieu of the duty performed on Saturdays/holidays. Accordingly, both the writ petitions qua the members of the Fire Brigade are hereby dismissed. 295. At the same time, the reasoning adopted by this Court in CWP No. 11624 of 2015 (Sr. No. 128 of Annexure 'C'), would be followed and applied qua those employees/petitioners, who were/are working in the Octroi Wing of the Municipalities, in the same terms as has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). It is also clarified that such employees/petitioners would be entitled to seek their remedy in view of Sirhind's case (supra), by filing exhaustive applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, if so advised. It is also clarified that such employees/petitioners would be entitled to seek their remedy in view of Sirhind's case (supra), by filing exhaustive applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, if so advised. However, said exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, and such claim would depend upon the law of limitation on the subject matter, if any operates. Thus, with aforesaid terms, CWP Nos. 11624 of 2015, 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002 are hereby disposed of. Block/Category of Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads), Punjab [Annexure: 'D', Total 82 cases, Sr. Nos. 131 to 212] 296. 82 writ petitions of this Block/category, pertains to the employees of the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) [PWD(B&R)] Punjab, working in its different Divisions at Patiala, Nabha, Ferozepur, Faridkot, Moga, Mohali and Ludhiana. All these 82 petitions have been filed by the employer/State authorities against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s) - Patiala, Bathinda and Ludhiana, as mentioned in detail in Annexure 'D'. 297. The employees in these writ petitions were holding the posts/designations as Beldar, Chowkidar, Mali, Painter, Moter Mate, Carpenter, Work Mistri, Mason, Floor Polisher, Fitter, Cleaner, Driver, Work Inspector, Road Inspector, Surveyor, Work Munshi, Store Keeper and Research Assistant (only in CWP-23252-2014), at the relevant time. 298. It has been asserted by the petitioners in this block/category of writ petitions that the employees holding the aforementioned posts/designations are deputed for field duty and as a part and parcel of duty attached to their Services, they are required to work from Monday to Saturday, such as for the upkeep of roads and maintenance of buildings etc., falling under the jurisdiction of the Department. They get salaries and pay scales, as fixed by the Government from time to time. Their seniorities and postings are separate from office staff, such as Peons, Clerks, Assistants, Stenographers etc. Neither the field staff can be transferred or posted in the offices, nor the office staff can be deployed in the field for carrying out various types of job, some of which are technical in nature. The nature of duty is different. The broad stand taken by the petitioners/department in these writ petitions is that there is no inter-changeability between field staff and office staff. 299. The nature of duty is different. The broad stand taken by the petitioners/department in these writ petitions is that there is no inter-changeability between field staff and office staff. 299. In these 82 writ petitions, applicants/employees have primarily relied upon the notification dated 07.04.1980, whereby instead of two Saturdays in month, it was decided by the State of Punjab that all the four Saturdays in a month would be treated as Holidays. Applicants/employees have also relied upon the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) thereby disposing of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) and submitted that they are entitled for extra wages for their working on Saturdays. However, in the applications filed by the employees, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, there appears to be no details as to how they can equate their right with the employees, who were parties in Sirhind's case (supra). 300. Employees were required to firstly plead in particular that they are posted in the field duty and the work is taken from them on Saturdays, which in fact, is otherwise off day for the employees of the office staff. In view of the observations made in Sirhind's case (supra), employees were also required to lead evidence to the effect that their services are inter-transferable, they have a common seniority list and are governed by one set of rules. Surprisingly, learned Tribunal perhaps without looking the pleadings from the said angle, on the one hand observed that such an aspect is not available on file and, still by drawing its presumption observed that employees are eligible to extra wages for working on Saturdays at par with employees working in the Octroi department, whose rights were dealt with by the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 301. To the best of understanding of statement of law, such a presumption is unsustainable because the party who alleges a particular fact is casted with a duty to prove the same by leading positive/affirmative evidence in that regard. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, the right or entitlement of the employees cannot be created first time by the Court. 302. Not only this, as already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment (refer para No. 154), Memo. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, the right or entitlement of the employees cannot be created first time by the Court. 302. Not only this, as already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment (refer para No. 154), Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, on the subject of 'performing of government duty by the field staff on gazetted holiday', in continuation of an earlier letter No. 6/10/93-6PP111/20107, dated 03.11.1993, was issued by the Punjab Government, as per which the field staff was not entitled to enjoy the benefit of holiday on Saturday. Thus, even otherwise also, the observations or the principle of law laid down in Sirhind's case (supra) would not be applicable for the employees of PWD (B&R) of the State of Punjab. 303. Employees' claim of extra wages, for working on Saturdays on the strength of the notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra), as issued by the State of Punjab, and judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), is not enough to establish any pre-existing right, for starting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, pleaded case of the department in these writ petitions is that there is neither any common seniority list nor the services are inter-transferable, in view of PWD Code and the clauses therein. In the petitions filed by the State of Punjab, pleaded part in CWP No. 13715 of 2017 (mentioned at Sr. No. 131 of Annexure 'D'), in Para 6 (vii), says as under: "6(vii) That the respondent have field duty and the applicant is thus in the category of field staff. Ex.M1 is the copy of PWD manual of orders and in clause 8.91 the detail of field duty of Respondent No. 01 to 27 has been given. The Respondent cannot be transferred and posted in any office of the Petitioner, where only the office staff can be posted in view of the exigency of assignment job. The applicants has neither any common seniority with the category of office staff. The field staff like the Respondent cannot be transferred and posted in the office of the Petitioner. The applicants cannot claim same pattern of holiday vis-a- vis of office staff due to different nature of work and job requirement. Service conditions of the Respondent are all together different from the office staff. The field staff like the Respondent cannot be transferred and posted in the office of the Petitioner. The applicants cannot claim same pattern of holiday vis-a- vis of office staff due to different nature of work and job requirement. Service conditions of the Respondent are all together different from the office staff. Service conditions of the Respondent being work-charged employee are governed by Para 1.129 to 1.132 of P.W.D. code, copy of which Ex.M2. but the service condition of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Respondent cannot be treated at par with the regular class-IV employees working in the offices. Notification Ex.W6 produced by the Respondent issued by the Punjab Government in which Saturdays as declared holiday is not applicable to the applicants and in this notification benefits not available to the field staff. Because in Para No.1.132 (a) (b)(c) PWD code which provides for grant of 15 casual leaves, alternative Sundays as maximum five gazetted holidays as of days. Saturdays is not holiday for the Respondent and as such the Respondent is not entitled to any compensation." 304. In support of said assertion, letter No. 4620, dated 25.02.1984, issued by the Secretary to Government Punjab, PWD B&R/P.H. Branches, to the Chief Engineer, Punjab, PWD B&R Branch, Patiala, has been annexed as Annexure P-5, with CWP No. 13715 of 2017, which reads as under:- "Copy of Letter No. 4620, dated 25th Feb. 1984 from the Secretary to Govt. Punjab PWD B&R/P.H. Branches to the Chief Engineer, Pb. PWD B&R Branch, Patiala. Sub: Work charged establishment-Grant of paid holidays to casual labour. The Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that on completion of six full days of work, the next day may be treated as a holiday with pay, in respect of the staff employed on muster rolls by the Public Works Department, B&R and Public Health Branches. Necessary amendment may be made to the rule 1.132 of the PWD Code. 2. The memo issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide U.O. No. 41211-Pb-63, dated 9th/10th February, 1964. Sd/- Under Secretary B&R for Secretary to Government Punjab, PWD B&R/PH Branches. Copy Endst. No. PWSSB-90/EA(3)/6432-35, dated 24.04.1990, from Managing Director, PWSEB, Chandigarh to the Superintending Engineer, PWSS Circle, Circle Patiala & others for information and taking necessary action. Endst. No. 3333-88 Dated: 8.5.90 A copy of the above is forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Punjab W/S Sewerage Division Patiala/Mech. Sd/- Under Secretary B&R for Secretary to Government Punjab, PWD B&R/PH Branches. Copy Endst. No. PWSSB-90/EA(3)/6432-35, dated 24.04.1990, from Managing Director, PWSEB, Chandigarh to the Superintending Engineer, PWSS Circle, Circle Patiala & others for information and taking necessary action. Endst. No. 3333-88 Dated: 8.5.90 A copy of the above is forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Punjab W/S Sewerage Division Patiala/Mech. Patiala/Sangrur/Ludhiana/Mohali at Jalandhar for information and necessary action. Sd/- Superintending Engineer, Punjab W/S & Sewerage Circle, Patiala." 305. Alongwith CWP No. 13715 of 2017, the petitioners also placed on record copy of the order dated 13.04.2009, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur, in Application No. 49 of 27.02.2003, titled as "Ashwani Kumar and 146 others v. Secretary to Government Punjab, PWD (B&R) Branch Chandigarh and others", as Annexure P-6. The said application, filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, has been rejected by the Tribunal, by giving the reasoning in para Nos. 5 to 14 of its order dated 13.04.2009. 306. Not only this, another judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in the case of Soma Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 5220 of 2003, decided on 22.09.2003), has also been placed on record as Annexure P-7, in CWP No. 13715 of 2017. In Soma Ram's case (supra), the petitioners were working in the PWD (B&R) as Mate, Supervisor, Boatman, Carpenter, Chowkidar, and Beldar etc. and filed the writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them benefits equal to their counter parts working in the office, and to extend the benefit of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as given in Sirhind's case (supra). After noticing the question posed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), as also the manner in which answer was given, finding no merit in the claim of the petitioners in Soma Ram's case (supra), Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the same by observing as under:- Operative part of the judgment in Some Ram's case (supra) " The issue to be determined in the instant case is whether the petitioners are entitled to extra wages for working on Saturdays. The petitioners in the present case are employees of the P.W.D. (B&R). They are holding posts of Motor mate/Supervisor, Boatman, Carpenter, Chowkidar, Beldar and Mate. The petitioners in the present case are employees of the P.W.D. (B&R). They are holding posts of Motor mate/Supervisor, Boatman, Carpenter, Chowkidar, Beldar and Mate. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners have been posted in the field where they are required to discharge duties even on Saturdays whereas the employees working in the offices of the P.W.D. (B&R) do not work on Saturdays. It is, therefore, submitted on the basis of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (noticed above) that extra wages should be paid to the petitioners. There is no doubt that the petitioners in the present case render duties for six working days in every week, but, there is no parity in the controversy in the present case with that of the decision rendered by the Apex Court (noticed above). The posts occupied by the petitioners are only in the field. There is no such post (as is held by the petitioners) in any of the offices of the P.W.D. (B&R). The pleadings of the present case also do not reveal that any person belonging to the cadres to which the petitioners belong are discharging duties for a period of five working days per week or are not required to work on Saturdays like the petitioners. The basis in granting relief to the appellants before the Apex Court, in the decision (noticed above) was that persons from the same cadre borne on the same seniority list working for six days in a week, were being granted the same emoluments as those who had to render duties for only five working days a week. In other words no benefit was being given to the employees for working for an additional 52 working Saturdays per year. The aforesaid position does not exist in the present case. In the present case, it cannot be said that there is an arbitrary determination of wages payable to the persons belonging to the same cadre. It is not the grievance of the petitioners, in the present case, that a person similarly situated as the petitioners working for lesser number of days is drawing the same emoluments as the petitioners. For the reasons recorded above, we find that there is no parity in the controversy raised in the present case, with that which arose for consideration before the Apex Court. For the reasons recorded above, we find that there is no parity in the controversy raised in the present case, with that which arose for consideration before the Apex Court. No other argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioners. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention of the petitioners in their claim for additional wages. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (J.S. Khehar) Judge Sd/- (Hemant Gupta) Judge 22.09.2003" 307. Moreover, there is no rebuttal/denial by the employees on record. Thus, this Court is constrained to reach to the conclusion that the conditions of Service of the employees involved in the writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure 'D'), who were/are working as field staff employees in the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) in the State of Punjab, are entirely different and not comparable with the employees in Octroi Department, whose rights were subject matter in Sirhind's case (supra). 308. Hence, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in 82 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure 'D'), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed. Resultantly, applications filed by the employees under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are ordered as 'dismissed'. Block/Category of Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab [Annexure: 'E', Total 12 cases, Sr. Nos. 213 to 224] 309. 12 writ petitions (Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure 'E') of this Block/category, pertains to the employees working in the office of the Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot. All these 12 petitions have been filed by the employer/State authorities against the orders passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, as mentioned in detail in Annexure 'E', against respective cases. 310. The employees in these writ petitions were holding the posts/designations as Store Keeper, Chowkidar, Pump Attendant, Pump Operator, Sewerman, Plumber, Work Munshi, Helper, Mali, Driver, and Key Man, at the relevant time. 311. After allowing of all the applications which were filed by the field staff employees posted with Public Works Department (Public Health) in the State of Punjab, the writ petitions have been filed by the State (for details see: Annexure 'E'). 311. After allowing of all the applications which were filed by the field staff employees posted with Public Works Department (Public Health) in the State of Punjab, the writ petitions have been filed by the State (for details see: Annexure 'E'). The employees in all these cases have also based their claim on the letter dated 07.04.1980 issued by the State of Punjab, whereby instead of two Saturdays in a month, it was decided that all the four Saturdays would remain off day. Employees also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) vis-a-vis rights of the field staff officials working in the Octroi Wing. Neither in the applications filed by the employees posted in field area nor in the evidence led in support of the pleadings, it has been established that their claim of wages for working on Saturday in the field area is at par with the employees posted for office duty, as discussed in Sirhind's case (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 312. There is no evidence that the services of the applicants/employees are inter-transferable with the office staff or there is common seniority list or their services are governed with one set of rules. In the absence of any such pleading or evidence, in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, employees cannot claim parity with the employees posted with the Octroi Department for the purpose of claiming their entitlement for recovery of the amount by way of the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 313. Moreover, the reasoning assigned by this Court for declining the claim of the employees, while dealing with writ petitions under Block/Category of Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads), Punjab (82 cases, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure 'D')[see para Nos. 296 to 308 of the judgment], is also applicable for declining the claim of the employees of the Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab, as well. However, same is not reiterated here in its entirety. 314. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, which have been impugned in 12 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure 'E'), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed. Resultantly, applications filed by the employees under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are ordered as 'dismissed'. 314. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, which have been impugned in 12 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure 'E'), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed. Resultantly, applications filed by the employees under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are ordered as 'dismissed'. Block/Category of Punjab Roadways [Annexure: 'F', Total 95 cases, Sr. Nos. 225 to 319] 315. Under this Block/Category, total 95 writ petitions concerning the cases of the employees of the Punjab Roadways are covered (for details, see Sr. Nos. 225 to 319 of Annexure 'F'). Out of these 95 writ petitions, 92 cases (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 225 to 316 of Annexure 'F') have been filed by the State of Punjab and its authorities, impugning the orders passed by Industrial Tribunal(s) - Bathinda, Gurdaspur, Patiala, Jalandhar, Amritsar, and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, whereas remaining 03 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 317 to 319 of Annexure 'F'), i.e. CWP Nos. 12561, 12605 and 17221 of 2013, have been filed by the employees, feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala. 316. Here, the employees who were working as Conductor, Driver, Assistant Cashier, Junior Technicians, Electricians, Helpers, Carpenter, Painter, Blacksmith, Mechanic, Welder, Store Boy, Sweeper, Fitter, Store Attendant, Sub Inspector, Inspector, TG-2, TG-3, Tyreman, Washing Boy, T/Mate, Upholster, Turner, Chowkidar, Security Guard, Attendant, Cleaner etc., approached the respective Industrial Tribunals, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking the benefit of extra wages for the work done by them on Saturdays/holidays. 317. Various rules and other statutory provisions, which govern the conditions of services of the employees, covered under this Block/category have already been discussed and extracted in the earlier part of this judgment [see para Nos. 109 to 120 of the judgment]. 318. Different set of rules have been made to govern the conditions of service of persons holding different cadre posts, as is clear from reading of the citation of the rules mentioned here-under:- (i) The Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules 1963. (ii) The Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules 1977. (iii) The Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977. (iv) The Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977. (ii) The Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules 1977. (iii) The Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977. (iv) The Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977. (v) The Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 319. After reading of aforementioned set of rules as a whole, it comes out that these rules, inter alia, provide the manner in which seniority of the members of a particular Service shall be determined; that their scales of pay, including special pay, if any, may be authorised by Government from time to time; that every member of the Service could be transferred to any other office or department of the State; and that in respect of matters not expressly provided for under these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may subsequently be adopted or framed by the competent authority. 320. Other than this, by way of legislative enactment, various provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, have also been made applicable to the motor transport workers. [see para Nos. 121 to 127]. It may be recalled that this enactment has been made specifically to protect the interests of the motor transport workers, which cover matters like medical facilities, welfare facilities, hours of work spread-over, rest periods, overtime, annual leave with pay, etc., and the State Government and/or Transport Undertakings/employer are duty bound to make adequate measures for the motor transport works. Further, the provisions of Sections 13 to 20 of the Transport Workers Act specifically provide for fixed hours of work, split of duty, weekly rest as well as compensatory day of rest. Still further, there are specific provisions for payment of extra wages for overtime, grant of annual leave with wages, and payment of wages during leave period in favour of the motor transport workers. 321. Employees detailed here-above, who undoubtedly due to the nature of their services from very inception are bound to perform their duties in the field area, are paid salaries on monthly basis. So this is nobody's case that the salary is not being paid for the Saturdays or any other holiday. 321. Employees detailed here-above, who undoubtedly due to the nature of their services from very inception are bound to perform their duties in the field area, are paid salaries on monthly basis. So this is nobody's case that the salary is not being paid for the Saturdays or any other holiday. However, comparing their own nature of work/work duties with the employees posted in the offices, this set of employees (ibid) claim extra wages for Saturdays by saying that they have enjoyed lesser leisure period in one week than the office staff people. But such a claim requires the pre-determination of the right of the employees at the level of the office of the authority concerned or any other Judicial Forum/Court and quasi-judicial authority, declaring the existing right of the employees posted in the field duty, making them entitled to recover the amount for such period. Neither there is any such pleading nor any evidence led by the employees through their applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, who are now before this Court in these writ petitions filed by the Transport department of the State of Punjab. The employees herein have also failed in pleading or proving on record that their rights are equal to the office staff employees as has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Thus, there is no point in wasting time to examine parity with the office staff employees of the Transport Department, with the present set of employees, who are working in the field area. 322. First of all, it is apt to note that there are no specific conditions of service mentioned or no specific rules pleaded in the applications filed by the employees while asking for the extra wages for working on Saturdays, while being posted for field duty. 322. First of all, it is apt to note that there are no specific conditions of service mentioned or no specific rules pleaded in the applications filed by the employees while asking for the extra wages for working on Saturdays, while being posted for field duty. On examination of the record of the cases, which have been decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, it is found that the reasoning assigned by the said Tribunal is well speaking because the right claimed at par with right of those employees, who were before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), was based upon a different set of facts and those employees were held entitled by the Hon'ble Apex Court after reaching to the conclusion that they cannot be put to any discrimination because the employees of the field staff and employees of office staff form a one group/cadre. 323. In the present cases, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence on the said score. Thus, the claim raised in respective applications is worthless. Moreover, the applications have been filed by the employees before the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, who were/are posted in the field duty as Conductor, Driver, Technicians, Electricians, Helpers, Carpenter, Painter, Blacksmith, Mechanic, Welder, Store Boy, Fitter, Tyreman, Washing Boy, Upholster, Turner, Cleaner etc. By implication of the nature of the job itself, the contention is wholly unacceptable that despite, being employed by the employer for rendering the duties attached to said posts, they should be paid extra wages for working on Saturdays separately. There is no denial that each and every employee is employed for services by paying salary on monthly basis. Once the employees are taken in service for rendering of field duties from the very inception, he/she is bound to perform the duties throughout the service period under the rules/terms and conditions which are applicable to him/her. 324. There is no denial from the employees side that the provisions of the Transport Workers Act are not applicable to them. It is also not their case that the benefits provided under the said legislative enactment, are not being extended to them by the authorities. Meaning thereby, the Motor Transport Workers are fully enjoying various facilities and concessions available to them under various provisions of the Transport Workers Act, which have already been mentioned in detail in the earlier part of this judgment. Meaning thereby, the Motor Transport Workers are fully enjoying various facilities and concessions available to them under various provisions of the Transport Workers Act, which have already been mentioned in detail in the earlier part of this judgment. 325. Once adequate measures, facilities and concessions have already been provided to the Motor Transport Workers, by virtue of Transport Workers Act, which are in addition to the salary, allowances and other monetary benefits prescribed under the rules governing their conditions of service, such employees cannot come forward with the grievance that they have been discriminated in any manner when they worked on Saturdays/holiday. 326. It has already been discussed in detail in the earlier part of this judgment that the provisions of law contained under Section 33C of the ID Act is only for initiation of recovery proceedings qua a 'right' which might have been adjudicated in advance to the initiation of such process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. In other words, Section 33C(2) of the ID Act deals with the recovery of money, and the proceedings under this section are in the nature of an execution. And, while exercising power under this provision, a dispute between an employer and a workman/employee cannot be determined. As per the settled mandate of law, without prior adjudication or recognition of the claim of the workman, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by him, shall not be maintainable for its adjudication under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Thus, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, and it can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. To strengthen the view point of this Court, judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ganesh Razak (supra) and Kankuben (supra) are pressed into. 327. Thus, it was incumbent upon the employees to plead and prove that a pre-existing right to claim extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays, was determined/declared in their favour, failing which they could not approach the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act., and in such a situation, the Court/Labour Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction by virtue of provision of law, i.e. Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 328. 328. In view of above, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in the writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 225 to 316 of Annexure 'F', are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed, and the applications filed by the employees therein are deemed to be dismissed. And, the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 317 to 319 of Annexure 'F', i.e. CWP Nos. 12561, 12605 and 17221 of 2013, as also the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are hereby dismissed by affirming the orders impugned therein, which were passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s). Block/Category of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) (Annexure: 'G', Total 09 cases, Sr. Nos. 320 to 328] 329. This Block/category covers 9 writ petitions (Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure 'G'), pertaining to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.), which have been filed by the employer/PRTC against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda. 330. The employees, who were working in the office of the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada, as Conductor, Driver, Blacksmith, Mechanic, Fitter, Inspector, Sub Inspector and Chief Inspector, approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act seeking the benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays, which were allowed. 331. As already discussed in detail in para Nos. 128 to 138 of this judgment, Class III and IV employees (now Group 'C' and Group 'D') of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC), are governed by the PRTC Regulations. The posts of the employees whose cases are involved under this Block/Category of writ petitions, find mention in Appendix 'A' appended to the PRTC Regulations. 332. As per Regulation 3(i) of the PRTC Regulations, all the employees of the PRTC are required to perform and carry out such duties and functions as they are ordinarily required to perform and the same are mentioned in their appointment letters or entrusted to them by the Corporation and its competent authorities. Further, as per Regulation 3(iii), an employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transport Workers Act. Further, as per Regulation 3(iii), an employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transport Workers Act. Meaning thereby, various concessions and benefits, under the Transport Workers Act, are also available to the employees of the PRTC, like the employees of the Punjab Roadways. Further, as per Regulation 4(a) & 4(b) of the PRTC Regulations, there is distinct and separate classification of various Posts/cadres belonging to Class III and Class IV Services, which is as under:- Class III (i) Ministerial Staff, (ii) Operation Staff, and (iii) Workshop Staff Class IV (i) Ministerial Staff (ii) Workshop Staff. Thus, object of the framers of the PRTC Regulations is very much clear, services of posts have been classified in different groups and by keeping in mind the nature of duties being performed by each one of them. Not only this, as per Regulation 12 of the PRTC Regulations, if the cadre of the members within one Service or under same classification is different, then their separate seniority shall be fixed cadre-wise. Though under Regulation 19 of the PRTC Regulations, all employees are liable to be transferred to any station or place within the jurisdiction of PRTC, but it is not there that a member of the Service covered under a particular classification can be transferred or posted to another group or cadre. In other words, an employee who is holding the post of a particular cadre under Operation Staff or Workshop Staff, cannot be posted or transferred to work as Ministerial Staff. There are specific provisions under the PRTC Regulations, i.e. Regulations 36 to 40, concerning working hours, weekly holidays, compensatory holidays, leaves, overtime allowance, hours of work for every class and group of employees, fixing of shifts etc. 333. On comparison of the pleadings, other material, as well as the reasoning adopted by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, in its orders, concerning these 9 writ petitions (Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure 'G'), this Court finds that the same are almost identical to the writ petitions pertaining to the Punjab Roadways, which have been dealt with here above (Sr. Nos. 225 to 319 of Annexure 'F'). The only difference is in the nomenclature of the rules/regulations, which are akin to each others with little variance here and there. Nos. 225 to 319 of Annexure 'F'). The only difference is in the nomenclature of the rules/regulations, which are akin to each others with little variance here and there. Thus, after satisfying itself, this Court is of considered opinion that without making any extra exercise, the discussion, reasoning and observations already made in para Nos. 319 to 326 of this judgment, can be safely followed and applied to decide the present Block/category of 09 writ petitions pertaining to the PRTC. 334. Hence, all the writ petitions from Serial Nos. 330 to 328 of Annexure 'G', filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) are hereby allowed. Resultantly, the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, impugned in the said writ petitions are hereby set aside being not sustainable, and the respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees therein are also deemed to be dismissed. Block/Category of Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government [Annexures: 'H' to 'N', Total 89 cases, Sr. Nos. 329 to 417] 335. Under this block/category, total 89 writ petitions have been carved out, which pertain to the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar; Municipal Corporation, Patiala; Municipal Committee, Jalalabad; Nagar Council, Abohar, Municipal Council, Sangrur; Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Municipal Corporation, Rajpura, as detailed here-under:- (A) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar [Annexure: 'H', 02 cases - Sr. Nos. 320 to 330] (B) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Patiala [Annexure: 'I', 51 cases - Sr. Nos. 331 to 381] (C) Cases of Municipal Committee, Jalalabad [Annexure: 'J', 10 cases - Sr. Nos. 382 to 391] (D) Cases of Nagar Council, Abohar [Annexure: 'K', 05 cases - Sr. Nos. 392 to 396] (E) Cases of Municipal Council, Sangrur [Annexure: 'L', 17 cases - Sr. Nos. 397 to 413] (F) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana [Annexure 'M', 02 cases - Sr. Nos. 414 & 415] (G) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Rajpura [Annexure: 'N', 02 cases - Sr. Nos. 416 & 417] 336. Orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s) - Amritsar, Patiala, Bathinda and Ludhiana, are subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions. One writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 09719 of 2013 (mentioned at Sr. No. 383 of Annexure 'J', has been filed by the employees for modifying the order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda. Nos. 416 & 417] 336. Orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s) - Amritsar, Patiala, Bathinda and Ludhiana, are subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions. One writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 09719 of 2013 (mentioned at Sr. No. 383 of Annexure 'J', has been filed by the employees for modifying the order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda. In all the aforementioned writ petitions, the respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees (for detail, see Sr. Nos. 329 to 417 of Annexures 'H' to 'N') were allowed by accepting the plea that their rights are equal to the employees posted in the field staff of Octroi Department working in the State of Punjab. 337. As there is no assistance to the Court to find out whether the claim of parity is available to such employees or not, nor any material is seen on record by the Court to reach to any conclusion on this aspect, therefore, it is not only hard rather impossible to reach to the conclusion that the rights of municipal employees, whose names find mention in Annexures 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M' and 'N' of this judgment, who were/are posted as 'field staff', could be posted as 'office staff' also or that their conditions of service were similar and governed under the same set of rules. There is also nothing on record to say whether the seniority list was also common. 338. The nomenclature/cadre/designation of posts of the employees covered in this Block/category of writ petitions, are - Safai Karamcharis, Sewermen, Sanitary Mates, Sanitary Jamadars, Pump Operator/Junior Technician, Mali, Chowkidar, Tractor Driver, Beldar, Flying Squad Beldar, Ranger Beldar, Tubewell Driver or Tubewell Operator, Electrician, Fitter, Street Light Petroler, T.W.D., Turner, Welder, Cleaner, Helper, Mason, Oilman, Junior Librarian, Fitter Collie and Vaccinator etc. 339. The relevant statutory provisions of the Act/rules governing the conditions of service of the aforementioned employees, which have been formulated by the Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government, have been reproduced and discussed in para Nos. 83 to 90 and 96 to 108 of this judgment. Just to refresh and recapitulate, the same are again referred in brief. 340. Under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 various categories of Municipalities, such as Municipal or Nagar Councils, Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Committees and Municipal Corporations, are constituted, and for conduct of their business, also framed certain Municipal Services. 83 to 90 and 96 to 108 of this judgment. Just to refresh and recapitulate, the same are again referred in brief. 340. Under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 various categories of Municipalities, such as Municipal or Nagar Councils, Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Committees and Municipal Corporations, are constituted, and for conduct of their business, also framed certain Municipal Services. Under Section 38 of the 1911 Act, the State Government is empowered to make rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the members of various Municipal Services, as well as make classification of such Services. Further provides that the State Government may transfer any member of a Municipal Service from a post in one committee to a post carrying the same scale of pay in another committee. By exercising the power under the 1911 Act, State of Punjab has formulated various rules for governing the condition of services of different set of Municipal Services. Some of the rules, which are relevant for the present purposes, are:- (i) The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986. (ii) The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984. (iii) The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975. 341. The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986, are applicable to the posts of Daftri, Light Patroller, Dai, Head Mali, Mate, Chowkidar, Peon, Anti-Malaria Beldar, Beldar/Labourer, Fitter/Coolie, Helper, Cleaner, Mali, Munad, Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Record Lifter, Key-man, Recovery Baillif, Khalasi and Oilman, and inter alia, deals with their seniority, pay and allowances, leave, uniform and various other matters. The inter se seniority of the said posts has to be determined cadre-wise in the manner provided under Rule 10. Therefore, there can't be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply. And, Rule 24 relating to 'Interpretation' provides that 'if any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same'. 342. The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984, are applicable to the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, working in the Municipalities in the State of Punjab. Their inter se seniority has to be determined cadrewise. 342. The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984, are applicable to the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, working in the Municipalities in the State of Punjab. Their inter se seniority has to be determined cadrewise. Rule 17 of the Safai Karamchari Rules specifically deals with the 'Holidays' admissible to each member of this Service, and states that they shall have - (a) a paid holiday once a week, (b) three National Holidays, namely, 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October, and (c) four other holidays at the option of the member on any of the festivals specified in Appendix 'C' attached with the Safai Karamchari Rules. There is provision for supply of uniform to the members of the Service, free of cost, under Rule 20 of the Safai Karamchari Rules. They shall also be entitled to washing allowance at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. Rule 23 of the Safai Karamchari Rules talks about the 'Weekly working hours' and it is prescribed that no member shall be required to work for more than eight hours on any day, and work shall be taken in two sessions, i.e. in the morning and in the evening, and the working hours shall be fixed by the Executive Officer for summer and winter. 343. The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975, regulate the conditions of service of those Services, which find mention in its Appendix 'A' (already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment). Likewise, inter se seniority of the members of a particular Service shall be determined separately, for every category within a Service. And, for the purposes of leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees, honoraris, house rent allowance, dearness allowances, fixation of pay, grant of increment etc., it is specifically provided that the members of the Services shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules applicable to Punjab Government employees. 344. Surprisingly, neither any of the aforementioned Service Rules have been relied upon by the employees in their respective applications, as is emerging from the record of the writ petitions available before this Court; nor they have attempted to substantiate their right of entitlement for extra wages for duty on Saturdays on the basis of the rules, which are applicable to them. 345. 345. Again, there is nothing brought on record to say that the right for Saturday wages is already settled for being entitled to the amount of extra wages for working on Saturdays, being posted for the field staff duty. Even, there is no parity claimed, pleaded or proved on record with the employees of Octroi Department whose rights were subject matter for adjudication before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 346. Needless to say that there is specific provision in the Safai Karamchari Rules to the effect that the members of the Service, who are governed by these rules, are required to work for six days in a week. Even, the holidays have been defined for them under the rules. Once, it is specifically mentioned in the service rules with which the job of the employees of the municipalities are governed, there is no meaning to entertain the request for grant of any benefit beyond the scope of the rules. 347. In respect of employees belonging to other cadres, there is nothing available on record to say that their services are inter-changeable; governed with common set of rules and; there is common seniority list of the officials of the field staff and the employees of the office staff. Even, it is pleaded case in written statement of the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation (in the cases decided by the Tribunal at Patiala) that the services of the employees are neither inter-transferable nor there is any common seniority list. It is also pleaded case in the written statement that apart the letter dated 07.04.1980, State of Punjab had again issued a circular with its further communication to the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation, clarifying that the field staff would work for six days a week with one holiday only. Despite such a specific stand taken by the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation, neither same has been adhered for reaching to the correct conclusion by learned Tribunal nor any judicial notice has been taken to that effect. 348. Undoubtedly, pleaded case of the municipalities before the Tribunal is that it was the only case of the employees of Octroi Department, which was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), and they were found to have form one common group/cadre. 348. Undoubtedly, pleaded case of the municipalities before the Tribunal is that it was the only case of the employees of Octroi Department, which was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), and they were found to have form one common group/cadre. Thus, the field staff employees of Octroi Department were found to be entitled for extra wages/compensation for the work done by them on Saturdays, which infact is an off day for the office staff employees. But, there is no parity between the Octroi Department employees vis-a-vis the employees detailed here-above, i.e. Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates, Sanitary Jamadars, Pump Operator/Junior Technician, Mali, Chowkidar, Tractor Driver, Baildar, Squad Baildar, Ranger Baildar, Tubewell driver, Tubewell operator, Electrician, Fitter, Street Light patroller, PWD turner, Welder Cleaner, helper, mason, oilman, Junior Librarian, fitter Colleague and Vaccinator etc. Even as per the nomenclature of the posts, all the aforementioned employees are meant to perform their outdoor duties i.e. as field staff and that too, right from the time of inception in service career. Therefore, by any mean such a plea does not lie in their mouth to claim parity with the other employees who are posted for office duties. 349. In, so far the scope of invoking of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and exercise of jurisdiction under it by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is concerned, elaborate discussions have already been made in para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment, and the view point taken by this Court, can safely be borrowed and applied to the facts of the writ petitions covered under this Block/category also. It is seen that the Industrial Tribunals while allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have completely overlooked this important aspect and allowed the applications by passing cyclostyle orders by adopting a casual approach, with the assumption and presumption that right to claim extra wages/compensation has accrued automatically to all the employees in terms of judgment in Sirhind's case (supra). Accordingly, this Court is of the view point that such type of orders cannot be allowed to sustain. 350. With the observations made hereabove, all the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 329 to 382 and 384 to 417 of Annexures 'H' to 'N' are hereby allowed and the orders impugned therein, thereby allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are set aside. 350. With the observations made hereabove, all the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 329 to 382 and 384 to 417 of Annexures 'H' to 'N' are hereby allowed and the orders impugned therein, thereby allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are set aside. Resultantly, respective applications filed by the employees are deemed to be of no meaning. However, CWP No. 09719 of 2013 (mentioned at Sr. No. 383 of Annexure 'J'), which has been filed by the employees working in the Municipal Committee, Jalalabad, seeking modification of the order passed by Industrial Tribunal Bathinda, is dismissed. Block/Category of Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab [Annexure: 'O', total 34 cases, Sr. Nos. 418 to 451] 351. This Block/category deals with 34 cases (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure 'O'), pertaining to the employees working in various Sub-divisions of the Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab, located at Ludhiana and Faridkot, as mentioned against each case. 352. In this segment of cases, the employees were working as Air Conditioner Mechanic, Technician Pump Operator, Sewerman, Helper, Electrician, Oilman, Fitter, Mali, Chowkidar, Store-Chowkidar, Beldar, Plumber Helper, and Keyman. 353. The employees approached the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, respectively, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays, prima facie, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 354. Here again, no assistance has been rendered to the Court in regard to the rules governing the conditions of service of aforementioned employees. Even, as regard the entitlement of the right to claim extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays, nothing specific is available on record so as to reach to any conclusion on this aspect. Likewise, there is also nothing on record to say whether the seniority list was also common or the services of the employees in question were interchangeable with those who were/are working as office staff. 355. The employees in the aforementioned writ petitions are those who were/are employed to execute their duties in the Water Supply and Sanitation Division and already deployed for field duties. Their nature of working is clear from the designation of the posts they held. 355. The employees in the aforementioned writ petitions are those who were/are employed to execute their duties in the Water Supply and Sanitation Division and already deployed for field duties. Their nature of working is clear from the designation of the posts they held. There cannot be any doubt that all such employees are engaged for field duties, i.e. outside the office and this fact is also well known to them since the inception of their career. Concerned Industrial Tribunals, while allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have taken note of the fact that as per the notification dated 07.04.1980, Government of Punjab declared the five days week for the purpose of working in the offices and also declared Saturdays as holiday. Thus, on such premise, the right of the employees for grant of extra wages/compensation having worked on Saturdays has been considered and thereafter allowed. 356. Probably, Industrial Tribunals were never apprised of the fact that said notification dated 07.04.1980, was later on supplemented by the State of Punjab, by way of specific clarification, vide Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, which was issued in partial modification of another notification No. 6/18/79/GE(6)/10898, dated 06.09.1979. As per the clarification in the said circular dated 02.03.1994, the field staff was asked to work for six days in a week. In other words only one day i.e. Sunday, was meant as holiday/off day for them. The letter is silent about the employees working in the offices. Surprisingly, said letter has never been highlighted by the employees nor by the State Government. However, this Court got a chance to go through the contents of the clarificatory letter dated 02.03.1994, when Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the employer in some of the writ petitions, made available translated version of the same. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the rights of the employees qua extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays, is to be considered solely on the basis of the Punjab Government's notification dated 07.04.1980. 357. Otherwise also, in none of the cases employees have pleaded their service conditions and the rules applicable qua them. It is only in the appointment letters or the relevant service rules, where the terms and conditions qua the services to be rendered by a particular class of employees, are detailed. 357. Otherwise also, in none of the cases employees have pleaded their service conditions and the rules applicable qua them. It is only in the appointment letters or the relevant service rules, where the terms and conditions qua the services to be rendered by a particular class of employees, are detailed. But none of such letters/rules have been brought on record either before the Industrial Tribunal or before this Court. In the absence of any such pleaded facts otherwise also it cannot be concluded that the employees of the Water Supply and Sanitation Department in the State of Punjab, have pre-existing right to enable them to claim extra wages/compensation for Saturday working, by way of filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 358. As already observed in detail, there cannot be any dispute to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the maintainability of the application that it has to be treated as a recovery process in the execution proceedings and cannot be used first time to get the right declared regarding the entitlement of money claimed through the petition. [see, para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment] 359. Moreover, employees of the Water Supply and Sanitation Department cannot claim parity with the employees whose rights were decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), wherein comparative study of the employees working in the offices at the field duty was done and thereafter it was concluded that both set of employees form one common group. In the present case, there is neither such plea raised nor any evidence has been led by the employees. Therefore, merely on the basis of declaration of entitlement of the employees of the Octroi Department or application of the principles of equality, cannot be of any help to the employees of the other departments like the present one, unless complete facts in regard to the service condition and the rules applicable and nature of duties etc. are demonstrated before the Court. 360. In fact Sirhind's case (supra) settles the law that equals who are forming one group, cannot be treated differently. Incidentally no such fact or evidence emerges for its examination from the applications filed by the employees before the Tribunal. 361. are demonstrated before the Court. 360. In fact Sirhind's case (supra) settles the law that equals who are forming one group, cannot be treated differently. Incidentally no such fact or evidence emerges for its examination from the applications filed by the employees before the Tribunal. 361. Since the aforesaid aspects were never taken note of by the Industrial Tribunals, I do not find any substantial reason to allow the sustainability of the orders impugned in this block/category of writ petitions. 362. As a result of above discussion, the writ petitions, mentioned at Serial Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure 'O', are allowed and the impugned orders passed by respective Industrial Tribunals, are hereby set aside. Resultantly the applications filed by the employees in these cases, i.e. under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are rendered meaningless. Block/category of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board [Annexure: 'P', Total 28 cases, Sr. Nos. 452 to 479] 363. In this block/category, there are total 28 writ petitions (detailed at Sr. Nos. 452 to 479 of Annexure 'P'). Out of 28, writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 452 to 472, 478 & 479 of Annexure 'P', i.e. 23 writ petitions, have been preferred by the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, impugning the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathina. Remaining 5 writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 473 to 477 of Annexure 'P', i.e. CWP Nos. 06235, 06204, 06245, 06255 & 06725, all of 2015, have been filed by the employees for modification of the orders passed by the Tribunal. 364. The employees of this block/category of cases were working as Junior Technician (Pump Operator), Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Assistant Pump Operator, Fitter/Coollie, Electrician Helper, Beldar and Chargeman, in the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, and approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturday, prima facie, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 365. So far as the whole-time regular employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board are concerned, their conditions of service are governed by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Services) Regulations, 1981. Various categories of Services are contained in Appendix 'B' of the 1981 Regulations. 365. So far as the whole-time regular employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board are concerned, their conditions of service are governed by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Services) Regulations, 1981. Various categories of Services are contained in Appendix 'B' of the 1981 Regulations. The appointing authority is competent to order transfer of all employees/officers within their sphere of jurisdiction and control, and the Managing Director is competent to order transfer of employees/officers from one circle to other circle and from field offices to the Head Office and vice versa. It has also been prescribed in the 1981 Regulations that where there are different cadres in a service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre, and in the matters of leave, joining time, suspension, honorarium, dearness allowance, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, liveries and other cognate matters, to which regulations are not made, shall be governed by the Punjab CSR, framed by the State of Punjab. Relevant provisions of the 1981 Regulations have already been discussed and reproduced in detail in para Nos. 139 to 143 of this judgment. 366. Primarily on two grounds the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the said employees, have been allowed in regard to the claim of extra wages/compensation for having worked on Saturdays - (i) As per Sirhind's case (supra) the field staff has already been ordered by the Hob'ble Apex Court to be entitled for extra wages for Saturday working; and (ii) As per notification dated 07.04.1980 circulated by the State of Punjab there are five working days in a week and two holidays/off days. From the record, it does not appear that the parameters which were before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of employees whose rights were under consideration in Sirhind's case (supra) were demonstrated by the employees through the applications in question or any such material was brought on record to say that the field staff of the employees of the Punjab water supply and the Sewerage Board, is having equal treatment in regard to the service conditions and other parameters with office staff employees and, thus, on the basis of parity they can be awarded the same benefit of extra wages. 367. 367. Therefore, in the absence of any such pleading or the evidence available on record, it would be very unfair with the State/Board to part with the public money by making payment of extra wages for Saturday working by the field staff employees of the Board. Therefore, broadly speaking this Court is firm in believing that the facts in involved in Sirhind's case (supra) and the parameters considered and laid down as a principle of law therein, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present set of writ petitions, i.e. for considering the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the field staff employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 368. Another aspect is that the notification dated 07.04.1980, which has been made basis for awarding relief, was later on clarified by the State of Punjab by issuing clarification vide Memo./letter dated 02.03.1994 (ibid). According to which the field Staff was required to work for six days a week and, thus, a differentiation was created by the State of Punjab between the office staff employees and filed staff employees. Undoubtedly, such a distinction might have been drawn after considering the nature of the duties and the exigencies required to meet out the public needs. Interestingly, the aforementioned Memo./letter dated 02.03.1994 was never challenged by anybody. 369. Moreover, while considering the rights claimed by the employees, this Court finds that there is neither any assistance in Court nor the facts have been clearly pleaded in the applicants/writ petitions, as to whether the employees who filed such applications are belonging to Municipal Council, Ferozepur or Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Simple statement of fact that 'the employees are working under the control of the Municipal Council Ferozepur', would not be enough to understand the terms of the service conditions and the rules with which such services are governed. Needless to say that in case the employees belong to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the 1981 Regulations of the Board would be applicable qua them and for the employees who belong to Municipal Council, Ferozepur, would be governed by a different set of rules. Needless to say that in case the employees belong to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the 1981 Regulations of the Board would be applicable qua them and for the employees who belong to Municipal Council, Ferozepur, would be governed by a different set of rules. There being no such clarity pleaded or available on record, the claim raised by the employees could not be entertained as a pre-existing right, claimable in terms of money by way of filing application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 370. There cannot be any dispute to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the maintainability of the application that it has to be treated as a recovery process in the execution proceedings and cannot be used first time to get the right declared regarding the entitlement of money claimed through the application. [see, para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment] 371. For the reasons recorded here-above, 23 writ petitions, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 452 to 472, 478 & 479 of Annexure 'P', are allowed and the orders impugned therein are hereby set aside. Resultantly the applications filed by the employees in these cases, i.e. under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are rendered meaningless. As result of above, remaining 5 writ petitions of this block/category, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 473 to 477 of Annexure 'P', i.e. CWP Nos. 06235, 06204, 06245, 06255 and 06725, all of 2015, filed by the employees are dismissed. Block/Category of Health Department, Punjab [Annexure: 'Q', total 01 case, Sr. No. 480] 372. In this Block/Category, there is only one case, i.e. CWP No. 27408 of 2016 (details of the case is mentioned at Sr. No. 480 of Annexure 'Q'), filed by the Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar and others, against the order dated 05.01.2015, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, in Application No. 201 of 2007, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which was filed by the employees (respondent Nos. 1 to 28 herein), who were working as M.L.T.-I, M.L.T.-II, M.P.H.W. (M), M.P.H.W. (F), Class-IV, Staff Nurse, L.H.R., Driver, Pharmacist, in the Civil Hospital, Amritsar, and Tarn Taran, respectively. 373. Facts of this writ petition are that the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 herein), who were working as M.L.T.-I, M.L.T.-II, M.P.H.W. (M), M.P.H.W. (F), Class-IV, Staff Nurse, L.H.R., Driver, Pharmacist, in the Civil Hospital, Amritsar, and Tarn Taran, respectively. 373. Facts of this writ petition are that the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 initially filed CWP No. 7567 of 2003 (Gopal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others), with a prayer to grant pay/wages for extra work done by them on Saturdays. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench, vide order dated 16.05.2003 (Annexure P-1), in terms of the statement made by State counsel that the competent authority will consider the case of the employees and pass appropriate order with regard to the claim raised in CWP No. 7567 of 2003, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), which was also annexed with the said petition. In the order dated 16.05.2003 (Annexure P-1), Hon'ble Division Bench also specifically made it clear that the direction for consideration of the case in the light of the judgments and the averments made in the writ petition, be not construed as a direction per se for grant of relief. For ready reference, order dated 16.05.2003, passed in CWP No. 7567 of 2003, is reproduced as under:- "C.W.P No. 7567 of 2003 Gopal Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others Present:- Mr. RK Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Swatanter Kumar, J (Oral) Issue notice to show cause why petition be not admitted. Mr. Ashish Sharma, Assistant Advocate General Punjab accepts notice. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Arora learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the controversy involved in the present case is covered on facts and law by the judgment of this court as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, copy thereof is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/3. He further contends that a specific averment has been made in this petition stating that there is no notification, Instructions or rule of the Government which enforces an obligation upon petitioners to work six days a week. In fact, the conditions of service of the employees who are getting salary without working on Saturday, are identical and similar to the petitioners. In fact, the conditions of service of the employees who are getting salary without working on Saturday, are identical and similar to the petitioners. In the circumstances afore-stated, learned counsel for the State fairly concedes that the competent authority shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order with regard to the claim raised herein and in the light of the judgment annexed to the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is brought to their notice. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. The respondents shall abide by their statement. Before we part with the file. We make it clear that the direction for consideration of the case of the petitioners in light of the judgements and the averments made in the writ petition, is not a direction per se for grant of relief. Sd/- Swatanter Kumar Judge Sd/- Mehtab S. Gill Judge 16.05.2003" 374. Thereafter, the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, being the competent authority, passed order No. E7(3) Punjab:2004/3023, dated 16.07.2004 (Annexure P-2T), and rejected the claim of the employees, after giving the reasoning that the working hours of the employees posted in Government Hospitals, Primary Health Centers, Community Health Centers, Dispensaries and other health establishments etc. where clinical services are provided in the State of Punjab, are from 8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. in summer and from 9.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. in winters, whereas there is different working schedule of the employees working on Clerical/administrative side, who work from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. It was also observed that keeping in view the health services for general public, the employees of Government Hospital / Dispensaries / Primary Health Centers, are deployed for emergency duties even on gazetted holidays. For ready reference, translated version of the order dated 16.07.2004, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2T with the writ petition, is reproduced as under:- "Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab Chandigarh Office Order No. E7(3) Punjab:2004/3023 Dated:16/07/2004 Sh. Gopal Singh, Medical Laboratory Technician & others had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 7567 of 2003 in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. In this writ petition the petitioners prayed that the employees who are posted at Civil Hospital/Dispensaries/Primary Health Centers have to give duty on Saturday. Gopal Singh, Medical Laboratory Technician & others had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 7567 of 2003 in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. In this writ petition the petitioners prayed that the employees who are posted at Civil Hospital/Dispensaries/Primary Health Centers have to give duty on Saturday. Like this they work for 06 days in a week. Even they have to do duty on Gazetted holidays. They are not given any compensation for this. In this writ petition, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court passed the following order vide its order dated 16.05.2003. In the circumstances afore-stated, learned counsel for the State fairly concedes that the competent authority shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order with regard to the claim raised herein and in the light of the judgment annexed to the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is brought to their notice. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. The respondents shall abide by their statement. Before we part with the file. We make it clear that the direction for consideration of the case of the petitioners in light of the judgements and the averments made in the writ petition, is not a direction per se for grant of relief." The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 15.03.2000 has cleared as per the followings: "Even if the State Government employees had enjoyed the said benefit during the relevant calendar year but if the Municipal Committees had promulgated, at the relevant time, any bye-law under which the working conditions of the staff members were uniformly prescribed to be six days in a week, then, the question of granting any monetary benefit to the appellants would not survive. On the other hand if there was no such bye-law at the relevant time, then the appellants would be entitled to claim wages for the Saturdays on which they have actually worked when their colleagues in the offices had not worked and had enjoyed benefit of closed Saturdays." It is also informed here that the working hours of Government Hospital /Dispensaries/Primary Health Centres are fixed from 08.00 AM to 02.00 PM in Summer and form 8.30 Am to 2.00 Pm in winters. Similarly the government has fixed the working hours of Employees of Government offices form 09.00 AM to 05.00 PM. Like this the working hours of the employees of Government Offfices are different from the working hours of employees of Government Hospital/ Dispensaries/ Primary Health Centres. Keeping in view the health Service of General Public the employees of Government Hospital /Dispensaries/Primary Health Centers emergency duties even on gazetted Holidays. are deployed for Due to the above explained circumstances the employees of Government Hospital/Dispensaries/Primary Health Centres cannot be granted compensation for their duties performed on Saturday and Gazetted Holidays, as per the order dated 15.03.2000 passed by the Apex court, as the working hours of employees of Government Hospital / Dispensaries / Primary Health Centres are different from the working hours of other employees of Government offices, keeping in view the Health Services provided to the General Public. They cannot be given any compensation for these duties. This demand of petitioners is hereby declined. Sd/- Davinderpal Singh Sandhu, Director, Health and family welfare, Punjab Endorsement No. E7(3) Punjab:2004/3024-26 Dated, Chandigarh: 16/07/2004 Copy to:- 1. Principal Secretary Punjab Government, Health and Family Welfare Department "Branch Health-5" Chandigarh in accordance to Government Memo No. 06/46/2003-1 Health 5/1909 Dated 23.01.2004 2. Civil Surgeon, Amritsar/Fathegarh Sahib, for information and necessary action. Sd/- Joint Director (Admn.) For Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab" Thus, while passing the said order, the competent authority has specifically considered the claim of the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 herein, in light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), and by giving specific reasoning for distinguishing their case, rejected the same. 375. Without challenging the order dated 16.07.2004, whereby the claim of the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 was declined by the competent authority, the aforementioned employees filed a joint application, bearing Application No. 201 of 2007, dated 01.08.2007, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, i.e. after about three years of passing of the order dated 16.07.2004. In the said application, the employees/applicants did not disclose the fact of rejecting of their claim. The application was filed even without impleading all the necessary parties. 376. The mischief, concealment and making a wrong statement by the employees/respondent Nos. In the said application, the employees/applicants did not disclose the fact of rejecting of their claim. The application was filed even without impleading all the necessary parties. 376. The mischief, concealment and making a wrong statement by the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, while filing application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is discernible from the opening para of the impugned order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P-3), wherein the claim made by the applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, and the same reads as under:- " ......It is also stated that during the employment, applicants had worked on each and every Saturday in spite of having holidays; that all the applicants are entitled to recover the amount of Saturdays on the overtime rate basis; that previously the applicants had also filed a CWP No. 7567 of 2003 in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as Gopal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dispose of the same with the directions to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order with regard to the judgement attached to the writ petition i.e. Municipal Employees Union (Registered) Sirhind and other v. State of Punjab and others, in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order is brought to their notice. The certified copy was delivered to the management but till today nothing has been paid to the applicants in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is further stated that since the applicants have served the Saturdays, as such they are entitled to get the amount for the period which they worked with the department; that the applicants made a request to the respondents to make the payment, but they have failed to make the payment. Lastly, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the amount of Saturdays since May, 2000 amounting to Rs. 4,22,849/-, after calculation as per the service records of the applicants, till date along with interest and costs in the ends of justice and equity of law." 377. While responding to the said application, the Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar, and Civil Hospital, Amritsar (petitioner Nos. 4,22,849/-, after calculation as per the service records of the applicants, till date along with interest and costs in the ends of justice and equity of law." 377. While responding to the said application, the Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar, and Civil Hospital, Amritsar (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein) raised preliminary objections regarding non-maintainability of the application and non-joinder of proper parties. On merits, it was pleaded before the Tribunal that the applicants are governed by the Punjab CSR; they are 24 hours servants of the State; and they are paid salaries even for Saturdays and Sundays. Thus, no question arises for grant of extra wages/compensation for the work done by them on Saturdays and Sundays. Their duty hours are spread over six days which means they have to perform duty for 37 ½ hours in a week. The case of the applicants is not similar to those employees who work in Government offices. 378. Perusal of the impugned order also reveals that the applicants, not only concealed about passing of the order dated 16.07.2004 (Annexure P-2T), whereby their claim was declined by the competent authority. Rather, the department/petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were also remiss in bringing the said fact to the notice of the Tribunal. Even, on 04.02.2010, they were proceeded against ex parte. Subsequently, the Chief Medical Officer, Tarn Taran was arrayed as respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, and an amended application was also filed. 379. In the evidence, except for tendering of affidavit Ex. W.1 by Gopal Singh (respondent No. 1 herein), nothing else was adduced to prove that the applicants have any pre-existing right to claim extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays and Sundays. Rather, in his cross-examination, Gopal Singh admitted that ministerial staff work from 9.00 a.m. to 5 p.m. with half an hour break. Even no material evidence was produced by the Chief Medical Officer, Tarn Taran. 380. Without discussing much, the Industrial Tribunal rushed to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to receive the amounts as per particulars mentioned in the annexure filed by them with the application alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of application till realization. Accordingly, allowed the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Para Nos. 11 to 16 of the impugned order dated 05.01.2015, are reproduced as under:- "Issues No. 1 and 2 11. Both these issues, being interlinked, are taken up together. Accordingly, allowed the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Para Nos. 11 to 16 of the impugned order dated 05.01.2015, are reproduced as under:- "Issues No. 1 and 2 11. Both these issues, being interlinked, are taken up together. 12. Learned authorized representative for the applicants has argued that the matter has been decided up till Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Municipal Corporation is duty bound to pay the amount of Saturday on which the applicants had worked with Chief Medical Officer / Amritsar / Tarn Taran. Learned authorized representative for the applicants has further argued that all these fact are proved from the evidence on file and, as such, the application be allowed. 13. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for respondent No.3 has argued that the applicants have already got pay from the office of the respondent and they are not eligible for amount for Saturday. The Learned representative for the respondent No. 3 has further argued that this application is false and, as such, the same be dismissed. 14. WWI Gopal Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.W.1, wherein he has deposed as per his application. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know if he has to work for six days in a week under rules. He has admitted that ministerial staff from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m, with half an hour break. 15. On the other hand RW1 Dr. Gurmeet Singh Tendered his affidavit Ex R.1, Wherein he has deposed that applicant were working on regular basis as per Punjab State Civil Service Rules and the employees are 24 hours servants of Punjab Govt., and they are paid salary even for Saturdays and Sundays. RW2 Dr. Sat Pal also tendered his affidavit Ex. RW2/A, in which he has deposed that applicants are working on regular basis as per Punjab State Civil Service Rules and the employees are 24 hours servant of Punjab Government and they are paid salary even for Saturdays and Sunday. Hence, there is no question of recovery for Saturday and Sunday so, this case is maintainable. Applicants are entitled to receive the amounts as per particulars mentioned in annexure filed by them with their application along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till realization. So both these issues are held in favour of the applicants and against the respondents. Relief. Applicants are entitled to receive the amounts as per particulars mentioned in annexure filed by them with their application along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till realization. So both these issues are held in favour of the applicants and against the respondents. Relief. 16. In view of my findings on the foregoing issues, the application is accepted and the applicants are held entitled to claim the amount of Rs. 4,22,849/- as per particular mentioned in Annexure filed by them along with their application along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it has accrued till realization of the payment. The respondents are directed to make the payment to the applicants, after calculation as per the service records of the applicants, within two months after passing of the order. No order as to costs. Reader of this Tribunal is directed to forward three copies of this order to Assistant labour Commissioner/Labour-cum-Conciliation officer, Amritsar, as required under section 33-C(4) of the I.D. Act read with Notification No S.O. 66/.A.14/1947/S.17/2008 dt. 1.10.2008. File be consigned to record room." 381. Without challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal, vide which petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded again ex parte, present CWP No. 27408 of 2016 has been filed on their behalf, as well as by the Chief Medical Officer, Tarn Taran. 382. In para No. 4 of the writ petition, there is specific averment regarding passing of order dated 16.07.2004, by the competent authority, declining the claim of the employees/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, to which one line reply has been given by the said respondents in their response dated 06.10.2020, which says - "4. That para 4 of the petition is also matter of record." In the very next para of the written statement, an attempt has been made to justify the course adopted by the employees in filing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, instead of challenging the aforementioned order dated 16.07.2004. Para No. 5 of the aforementioned reply, is reproduced as under:- "5. That para 5 of the petition is replied in this way that though the respondents have not filed another writ petition challenging the order of the petitioners in compliance of the order passed in earlier writ petition. Para No. 5 of the aforementioned reply, is reproduced as under:- "5. That para 5 of the petition is replied in this way that though the respondents have not filed another writ petition challenging the order of the petitioners in compliance of the order passed in earlier writ petition. However, the application filed by them under section 33C is well within the pale of parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned supra." 383. From the narration of facts of the present writ petition, no doubt is left that the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 were very much aware of the rejection of their claim of extra wages for working on Saturdays and Sundays. But they opted not to challenge the order dated 16.07.2004 (Annexure P-2/T). After a long slumber of about three years, waking up on a fine day, they decided to try their luck once again, by making a vague attempt. Accordingly, devised a novel idea of filing a joint application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, under the guise of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), by concealing the fact of already rejection of their alleged right. Not only this, even the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 have succeeded in the said attempt when the Tribunal has passed an evasive and erroneous order in their favour. It is settled principle of law that no relief can be granted to a litigant who does not approach the Court with clean hands and deliberately conceal/withhold material facts from the Court. This principle very much applies to the case of the employees herein. Accordingly, this writ petition can be allowed on this score alone. 384. It is specific case of the petitioners herein that the employees were appointed on regular basis and governed under the Punjab CSR. They are government servants for 24 hours, and salary is being paid to them on monthly basis, including Saturdays and Sundays. It is nobody's case that the salary is paid to the employees for the actual working days only and, therefore, having taken work from them on Saturdays or Sundays, they are entitled for extra wages. They are government servants for 24 hours, and salary is being paid to them on monthly basis, including Saturdays and Sundays. It is nobody's case that the salary is paid to the employees for the actual working days only and, therefore, having taken work from them on Saturdays or Sundays, they are entitled for extra wages. It is also pleaded that the duty hours of the employees/applicants are fixed for 6 hours a day for 6 days i.e. 36 hours per week, whereas the other employees who are working on administrative side, have to work 8 hours a day for 5 days i.e. 40 hours a week. Therefore, the claim of the employees was pleaded to be not tenable in the eye of law. 385. Without dealing with such an assentation taken in reply and even in the statement of official witness RW1 - Dr. Gurmeet Singh and rather without examining the Punjab CSR, the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act has been allowed by the Tribunal solely by assuming that the rights of the employees are completely covered with the observation made in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court declared the Clerks of the Octroi Department as forming one group, their services being governed by one set of rules, sharing one seniority list, as also the ingredient of inter-transfer of service i.e. from office staff to the field staff and vice versa was there. Such analogy or even the statement of law, i.e. not to cause discrimination amongst equals, is not available to the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, who filed the application in the present case. 386. Needless to repeat again that as per Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, a government employee is at the disposal of the Government, which pays him, and can be appointed in any manner as per the authority, without claim or extra remuneration but of course for working a particular set of hours per day, as per service rules. 387. For the reasons recorded hereabove, this Court does not find any accruing legal right of the employees/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, in consonance with the decision of Sirhind's case (supra). Therefore, with the strength of the reasons recorded here-above, and left with no other option, CWP No. 27408 of 2016 stands allowed. 387. For the reasons recorded hereabove, this Court does not find any accruing legal right of the employees/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, in consonance with the decision of Sirhind's case (supra). Therefore, with the strength of the reasons recorded here-above, and left with no other option, CWP No. 27408 of 2016 stands allowed. Accordingly the impugned order dated 05.01.2015, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, is set aside. Resultantly, Application No. 201 of 2007, filed by the employees/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is rendered meaningless. Block/Category of Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab [Annexure: 'R', Total 02 cases, Sr. Nos. 481 & 482] 388. In this Block/category, there are 2 writ petitions, filed by the employer(s) (details of cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure 'R'), against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana (in CWP No. 09306 of 2014) and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (in CWP No. 22791 of 2016), vide which the respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees have been allowed. 389. The workers in these cases are employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab. They were working as Cattle Attendant, Beldar, Agriculture Beldar, Tractor Driver, Class-IV, Milk Recorder, Junior Technician, Pig Attendant, Sheep Attendant, Bull Attendant, Agriculture Development Officer, Lab Attendant, Carpenter, Sweeper, Attendant, Veterinary Officer, Chowkidar, and Blacksmith, and discharging their field duty at Animal Husbandry (Farms), Mattewara, Ludhiana; and Animal Husbandry (Farms), Nabha, Patiala, during the relevant point of time. 390. The aforementioned set of employees approached the Tribunal(s) by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays, prima facie, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 391. Primarily on two grounds the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the said employees, have been allowed in regard to the claim of extra wages/compensation for having worked on Saturdays - (i) As per Sirhind's case (supra) the field staff has already been ordered by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be entitled for extra wages for Saturday working; and (ii) As per notification dated 07.04.1980 circulated by the State of Punjab, there are five working days in a week and two holidays/off days. 392. 392. From the record, it does not appear that the parameters which were before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of employees whose rights were under consideration in Sirhind's case (supra) were demonstrated by the employees through the applications in question or any such material was brought on record to say that the field staff of the employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, is having equal treatment in regard to the service conditions and other parameters with office staff employees and, thus, on the basis of parity, they can be awarded the same benefit of extra wages. 393. This Court has already noticed number of times that the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is maintainable only for recovery of the money, which the employer is liable to pay to the employee. The said proposition of law is being followed on regular basis by the Courts without any doubt by following the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Central Bank of India (supra). Specific and elaborate discussions made in para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment, may also be read herein. 394. First of all, there is no such declaration ever obtained by the employees/applicants who are claiming their rights for recovery of the extra wages for having worked on Saturdays. Even, there is no pleading in the applications that with what kind of rules their services are governed. None of the applicants has even pleaded that as per rules/service conditions, for how many days they are required to work in a week being posted for field duties since inception of joining the service. Even there is neither any pleading nor any piece of evidence available on record that they are being treated differently than the employees of the office staff, though they are entitled for the equal treatment. 395. The applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act have been allowed by learned Tribunal, vide impugned orders herein, merely on the assumption that the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the employees in Sirhind's case (supra), who were working with the Octroi Department, has made it obligatory over the State of Punjab to pay the extra wages for working on Saturday to each and every employee of the State. 396. 396. Another aspect is the issuance of notification dated 07.04.1980, vide which the five working days in a week were declared. After examination of the record, this Court has found that the said notification dated 07.04.1980, was later on supplemented by the State of Punjab, by way of specific clarification, vide Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, which was issued in partial modification of another notification No. 6/18/79/GE(6)/10898, dated 06.09.1979. As per the clarification in the said circular dated 02.03.1994, the field staff was asked to work for six days in a week. In other words, only one day i.e. Sunday, was meant as holiday/off day for them. The letter is silent about the employees working in the offices. Surprisingly, said letter has never been highlighted by the employees nor by the State Government. However, this Court cannot shut its eyes while deciding the controversy by ignoring the letter dated 02.03.1994. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the rights of the employees qua extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays, is to be considered solely on the basis of the Punjab Government's notification dated 07.04.1980. 397. This Court has also taken note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) and the background of the facts therein, and found that no such similarity of facts or the principle of law is made out in the present block/category of writ petitions to reach out to the conclusion that the employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, who filed the applications, have similar rights as of the Octroi Department in the State of Punjab. 398. Broadly speaking, without demonstration of the service conditions and the rules by which their services are governed, it is impossible to even claim that they have any preexisting right. Therefore, in view of the reasons recorded hereabove, this Court is firm in reaching to the conclusion that the impugned orders passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana (in CWP No. 09306 of 2014) and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (in CWP No. 22791 of 2016), are not worth to sustain. 399. Thus, by allowing both the writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure 'R'), the orders impugned therein are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are meaningless. Block/Category of Sainik Welfare, Punjab [Annexure: 'S', total 01 case, Sr. 399. Thus, by allowing both the writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure 'R'), the orders impugned therein are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are meaningless. Block/Category of Sainik Welfare, Punjab [Annexure: 'S', total 01 case, Sr. No. 483] 400. In this block/category, there is only one case, i.e. CWP No. 15817 of 2016 (details of the case mentioned at Sr. No. 483 of Annexure 'S'), which has been filed by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar & another, against the order dated 24.05.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, in Application No. 168 of 2009, under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, which was filed by Tarsem Lal s/o Jai Ram, who was working as a Welfare Worker-cum-Clerk, in the office of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar. 401. In his application, under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, the said employee (respondent No. 1 in the writ petition) pleaded that in the month of April, 2004, he was appointed as Welfare Worker-cum-Clerk in the office of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar, on contract basis, on monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-. On 08.02.2006, he was appointed on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200, after due selection process. According to the employee, provisions of the Punjab CSR were applicable in the said department. And, as such he was entitled to the benefit of, off on Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays. It is alleged that the employee was compelled by the District Sainik Welfare Officer to perform their duty on Saturday and some times on holidays. It was also pleaded by the said employee that the department is running various courses and trainees have to pay heavy charges for the same. Besides this, the department also earns from Sainik Rest House and shops given on rent. Despite making requests for payment of dues for performing duty on Saturdays and holidays and releasing the arrears of revised pay w.e.f. January, 2006, the department failed to pay the same on one pretext or the other. Thus, the employee claimed that he is entitled to estimated amount of Rs. 1,43,983 alongwith interest. 402. In the written statement, the department pleaded before the Industrial Tribunal that the employee/applicant was appointed on 89 days basis as Welfare Worker and not as Welfare Worker-cum-Clerk. Thus, the employee claimed that he is entitled to estimated amount of Rs. 1,43,983 alongwith interest. 402. In the written statement, the department pleaded before the Industrial Tribunal that the employee/applicant was appointed on 89 days basis as Welfare Worker and not as Welfare Worker-cum-Clerk. He applied for the post of Welfare Clerk against the open advertisement by the department at Chandigarh, wherein he was selected as Welfare Worker in the scale of Rs. 4020-6200, and joined as such on 10.02.2006. On 22.07.2008, he was posted in the office of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Mansa. As per rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, the employee was a full time employee and in the said rules, there is no provision for rest as stated in the application. However, entitlement of the employee/applicant for dues on account of revision of pay scales, from 01.01.2006 to 31.07.2009, was admitted. It was denied that no official work on Sunday and holidays unless there is a special requirement. As regard the allegation of earning of the department from imparting of various types of training and charging from students, it has been stated that most of the pre-training is imparted on free-ship basis and the department is not a commercial or profit making organization. The rent of the rest house rooms are fixed by the Government and the income is deposited to the Directorate. It has also been clarified that on Saturdays, the field staff carries out their left over jobs. The employee/applicant was also doing bonafide government duty, for which he was not entitled to honorarium, as he was a whole time government servant. And, whenever there is official requirement, all the whole time government employees are supposed to discharge their duties. 403. A rejoinder to the written statement was also filed by the employee/applicant, wherein by reasserting his version as in the application, denied the stand taken by the department. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Industrial Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the arrears of revised pay scale wages for duty performed on Saturdays and other holidays? OPA 2. Relief." 404. To prove his case, the employee/applicant himself appeared as AW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. A1 and documents as Exs. WW1/1 to WW1/75. On the other hand, the department examined Jatinder Kumar, Superintendent, as RW1, who tendered his affidavit Ex. OPA 2. Relief." 404. To prove his case, the employee/applicant himself appeared as AW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. A1 and documents as Exs. WW1/1 to WW1/75. On the other hand, the department examined Jatinder Kumar, Superintendent, as RW1, who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Exs. R-1 to R-9. Also examined Jaswinder Singh, Superintendent as RW2, who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW2/A; and Vikas Kumar, Senior Assistant, as RW3, who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW3/A and documents Exs. RW3/1 & RW3/2. 405. During the course of arguments, authorized representative of the employee/applicant had restricted the claim for payment of extra wages for Saturdays and Sunday only, and did not press for any other claim. Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the claim for performing duty on 73 holidays, i.e. 58 Saturdays and 15 Sundays from June, 2006 to March, 2008, i.e. for an amount of Rs.261000/- + Rs.6750/-. 406. For deciding the objection raised by the department that it is not covered under the definition of 'Industry', as per the provisions of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal after referring to para No. 163 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, 1978 (1) LLJ 349 : Law Finder Doc Id # 105181, answered the same in favour of the employee/applicant. The Tribunal also cited the judgments in the cases of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and another v. Attar Singh and others, 2000 Lab. L.C. 853, and Philadelphia Missiona Hospital v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another, 2004 (4) SCT 761 : Law Finder Doc Id # 78776. 407. After examining the evidence produced by the employees/applicant, Ex. WW1/3 to WW1/74, the Tribunal found that he performed duty on 58 Saturdays and 15 Sundays. The employee/applicant also proved that no compensatory leave was given to him in lieu of duty performed on Saturdays and Sundays. Even in his cross-examination, Jatinder Kumar, who was produced by the department as RW1, admitted that Ex. WW1/15 are office letters, and Ex. WW1/16 to Ex. WW1/14 are regarding tour programmes of the employee/applicant. The other witness, namely, Jaswinder Singh, RW2 also deposed in his cross-examination that there are no instructions that they can call any official on Saturday and other holidays. WW1/15 are office letters, and Ex. WW1/16 to Ex. WW1/14 are regarding tour programmes of the employee/applicant. The other witness, namely, Jaswinder Singh, RW2 also deposed in his cross-examination that there are no instructions that they can call any official on Saturday and other holidays. As per notification of Punjab Government, dated 07.04.1980, Punjab Government offices shall remain closed on all the Saturdays. 408. In this manner, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the employee/applicant worked on Saturdays and Sundays and entitled to wages for performing duty on such days. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the case of Niranjan Dass (supra). Accordingly, the Tribunal held the employee/applicant entitled to wages amounting to Rs. 32,850/-, for performing duty on Saturdays and Sundays, by allowing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Hence, the present writ petition. 409. In the writ petition, the stand taken by the department is that prior to 10.02.2006, the employee (respondent No. 1 herein) was working on contractual basis, and worked intermittently from April, 2004 to January, 2006, with breaks from time to time. His services were terminated during probation period, on account of misconduct/inefficiency, because after 17.03.2008 he suddenly proceeded on leave and never reported back for duty thereafter. The petitioner department is not a profit making agency and does not fall within the ambit of the ID Act and the Tribunal erred in law in applying the judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), because the dominant nature of tests prescribed in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the petitioner-department is rendering services for the welfare of armed forces personnel, war widows, their children and dependents. 410. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.08.2016, the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court: " Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to find out whether workman has worked on Saturdays or not and if he has worked on Saturdays whether is he entitled for admissible salary. List this matter on 06.09.2016" Thereafter, a short affidavit, dated 01/07.11.2016, was filed by the District Defence Services Welfare Officer, Jalandhar, and para Nos. 2 to 4 thereof reads as under:- "2. List this matter on 06.09.2016" Thereafter, a short affidavit, dated 01/07.11.2016, was filed by the District Defence Services Welfare Officer, Jalandhar, and para Nos. 2 to 4 thereof reads as under:- "2. That respondent No. 1 was appointed as Welfare Worker on probation in the office of Petitioner No. 1 on 10.02.2006 and he worked upto 17.03.2008, when he suddenly proceeded on leave and never reported back for duty thereafter. 3. That during said probation period, respondent No. 1 worked mainly in the Field for implementing Government policies for martyr's families, veterans, their widows and dependents and on Saturday he carried on his own left over official pending work being designated to him as field officer. 4. That no official work given to the respondent No. 1 on Saturday except he attended only official meeting organized for Half an hour for National Flag Day Celebration for the welfare of Martyr's families and their dependents, who sacrifice their lives for the defence of the motherland. He was officially called upon to attend office only for these days. On other occasions he came to attend office to complete his left over work." 411. In the case in hand, the employee/respondent No. 1 has based his claim on the basis of Punjab Government's notification dated 07.04.1980, whereby it was notified for the first time that Punjab Government offices shall remain closed on all the Saturdays. As per own saying by the employee, the provisions of the Punjab CSR were applicable to him. However, the employees has nowhere disclosed about the other details, such as office structure, cadre strength, seniority etc., of his Service. It is also not his case that some of the co-workers were enjoying holidays on Saturdays and Sundays, and only he was made to work on such days. 412. In so far the scope of invoking of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and exercise of jurisdiction under it by the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, elaborate discussions have already been made in para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment, and the view point taken by this Court can safely be borrowed and applied to the facts of the present case. To avoid repetition, the same is not mentioned here again. 413. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment, and the view point taken by this Court can safely be borrowed and applied to the facts of the present case. To avoid repetition, the same is not mentioned here again. 413. It was incumbent upon the employee/respondent No. 1 to plead and prove that a pre-existing right to claim extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays, was determined/declared in his favour, failing which he cannot approach the Tribunal under Section the provisions of 33C(2) of the ID Act. Thus, the Court/Labour Court would not be having jurisdiction to exercise its powers by virtue of provision of law, i.e. Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 414. Moreover, as per affidavit, dated 01/07.11.2016, specific stand of the petitioners/department is that the employee/respondent No. 1 was never assigned official work on Saturday, and he only attended official meetings organized for half an hour for National Flag Day Celebration for the welfare of Martyr's families and their dependents. He carried on his own left over official pending work on Saturdays. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that it was part and parcel of the duties of the employee/respondent No. 1, being a Welfare Worker, to perform duty in the field and he cannot escape from the same. 415. Having considered the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely concluded that the employee/respondent No. 1 cannot approach the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for determination of his right to claim extra wages for performing duty on Saturdays/holidays. The Industrial Tribunal has erred in law to consider this aspect of the matter and exceeded its jurisdiction in determining the right of the employee/applicant, while allowing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Resultantly, CWP No. 15817 of 2016 succeeds, and the impugned order dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the employee/respondent No. 1 to avail his alternative remedy, if any, available to him, in accordance with law, if so advised. Block/Category of Punjab Mandi Board [Annexure: 'T', Total 21 cases, Sr. Nos. 484 to 504] 416. In this Block/Category, there are 21 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. However, liberty is granted to the employee/respondent No. 1 to avail his alternative remedy, if any, available to him, in accordance with law, if so advised. Block/Category of Punjab Mandi Board [Annexure: 'T', Total 21 cases, Sr. Nos. 484 to 504] 416. In this Block/Category, there are 21 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T'), filed by the Punjab Mandi Board, against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, as well as Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, vide which the respective applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees have been allowed. 417. The workers in these cases are employees of the Punjab Mandi Board and were posted at different places such as Malerkotla, Sangrur, Patiala, Chandigarh, Faridkot, Ferozepur and Muktsar. They were working as Chowkidar, Helper, Sewerman, Fiitter, Coollie, T/Mate, Plumber, Pump Operator, Supervisor, Survey Khalasi, Junior Engineer, Driver, and Electrician, during the relevant point of time. 418. The relevant provisions of the statutory rules, vide which various employees of the Punjab Mandi Board are governed, have already been discussed and reproduced in para Nos. 144 to 151 of this judgment i.e. (i) The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989; (ii) The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989; (iii) the Punjab Market Committees (Class III) Service Rules, 1989; and (iv) The Punjab Market Committees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989 419. It would be relevant to mention here that various posts/cadres of Class III (now Group 'C') employees of the Punjab Mandi Board have been specifically bifurcated into two broad categories i.e. (i) 'Technical' and (ii) 'Non-Technical' posts, and seniority of the employees is determined separately and cadrewise. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service is different, then their separate seniority shall have to be fixed cadre-wise. Even, a member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab. In furtherance of the said rules, the provisions of the Punjab CSR are also applicable to them. 420. Even, a member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab. In furtherance of the said rules, the provisions of the Punjab CSR are also applicable to them. 420. Likewise, seniority of the Class IV (now Group D) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, i.e. Daftri, Jamadar, Chowkidar Peon/ Library Attendant, Peon-cum-Chowkidar, Sweeper, Head Mali, Helper, Beldar and Ferro Khalasi, is also determined post/cadrewise, and they are liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. The provisions of the Punjab CSR are also applicable to them. 421. Like the writ petitions of other blocks/categories, which have already been dealt with by this Court in the earlier part of this judgment, the aforementioned employees of present block/category, i.e. Punjab Mandi Board (for details see Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T'), also approached the Tribunal(s) by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Such applications were filed on the strength of one or other order passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the writ petitions filed by the employees, e.g. CWP No. 20174 of 2003 and CWP No. 16541 of 2003, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturday, on the basis of notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra) and judgment in Sirhind's case (supra). 422. Contesting the said claim, it was pleaded on behalf of the Punjab Mandi Board that the services of the applicants/employees, who are posted as field staff and those who are posted as office staff, are governed by different set of rules and their posts are not inter-changeable. Even their working hours are also different. It is pleaded in specific that the categories of Sewerman, Pump Operator, Plumber, Fitter, Coollie etc. are not transferable with the employees working in the office. The nature and functions of the Punjab Mandi Board are akin to the Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab. The employees are receiving their salary for the entire months including Saturdays and Sundays. Even, the notification dated 07.04.1980, is applicable only qua employees of office staff, because it nowhere talks about its applicability to the employees of the field staff. 423. The employees are receiving their salary for the entire months including Saturdays and Sundays. Even, the notification dated 07.04.1980, is applicable only qua employees of office staff, because it nowhere talks about its applicability to the employees of the field staff. 423. The Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, and Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, have allowed the applications filed by the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board mainly on the premise that the order dated 11.06.2003, passed by the competent authority of the Punjab Mandi Board, thereby rejecting the claim of the employees for benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays and Sundays, was set aside by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in CWP No. 16541 of 2003, vide judgment dated 19.07.2005 (supra). It seems that without carefully reading the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra), the said Tribunals assumed that the judgment dated 19.07.2005 passed in CWP No. 16541 of 2003, has attained finality and the right of the employees stand determined. In this way, the Tribunals allowed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, in present set of writ petitions. 424. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, has appeared in these 21 writ petitions, on behalf of the Punjab Mandi Board, whereas in some of the writ petitions Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, defended the cases of the employees. Their respective arguments have already been noticed and dealt with by this Court in para Nos. 175 to 184 and 200 to 209, respective, and need not to be reiterated here again. 425. Own admitted case of the employees/applicants/respondents herein is that they were deputed as field staff as a part and parcel of duty attached to their Service. There is no denial that their seniorities and postings are separate from office staff, and neither the field staff can be transferred or posted in the offices, nor the office staff can be deployed for, in the field for carrying out various types of job, some of which are technical in nature. Thus, nature of duties of the employees/applicants herein is different. The broad stand taken by the Punjab Mandi Board before the Tribunals as well as before this Court is that there is no inter-changeability between the field staff and office staff employees of the Punjab Mandi Board. 426. Thus, nature of duties of the employees/applicants herein is different. The broad stand taken by the Punjab Mandi Board before the Tribunals as well as before this Court is that there is no inter-changeability between the field staff and office staff employees of the Punjab Mandi Board. 426. In these 21 writ petitions, the employees / applicants / respondents herein, have primarily relied upon the notification dated 07.04.1980, whereby instead of two Saturdays in month, it was decided by the State of Punjab that all the four Saturdays in a month would be treated as Holidays. The applicants/employees have also relied upon the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), thereby disposing of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) and submitted that they are entitled for extra wages for their working on Saturdays. However, in the applications filed by the employees, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, there appears to be no details as to how they could seek equating their claim, with the employees who were parties in Sirhind's case (supra). 427. The employees were also required to lead evidence to the effect that their services are inter-transferable, they have a common seniority list and are governed by one set of rules. Learned Tribunals have not gone into the said aspect and perhaps were convinced with the judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nirbhai Singh's case (supra), while drawing a presumption that the employees are eligible to extra wages for working on Saturdays at par with employees working in the Octroi department, whose rights were dealt with by the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). However, such a presumption is unsustainable because the party who alleges a particular fact is casted with a duty to prove the same by leading positive/affirmative evidence in that regard. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, the right or entitlement of the employees cannot be created first time by the Court. 428. Not only this, as already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment (refer para No. 154), Memo. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, the right or entitlement of the employees cannot be created first time by the Court. 428. Not only this, as already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment (refer para No. 154), Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, on the subject of 'performing of government duty by the field staff on gazetted holiday', in continuation of an earlier letter No. 6/10/93-6PP111/20107, dated 03.11.1993, was issued by the Punjab Government, as per which the field staff was not entitled to enjoy the benefit of holiday on Saturday. Thus, even otherwise also, the observations or the principle of law laid down in Sirhind's case (supra) would not be applicable for the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board. 429. The argument of the employees claiming right of extra wages for working on Saturdays on the strength of the notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra), issued by the State of Punjab and the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), is not enough to derive any right, which may be called as pre-existing right, for starting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, pleaded case of the Punjab Mandi Board in these writ petitions is that there is neither any common seniority list nor the services are inter-transferable. 430. Thus, this Court is constrained to reach to the conclusion that the conditions of Service of the employees involved in the writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T'), who were/are working as field staff employees in the Punjab Mandi Board, are entirely different and not comparable with the employees in Octroi Department, whose rights were subject matter in Sirhind's case (supra). 431. Hence, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in 21 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T'), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed, and the applications filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Block/Category of Irrigation Department, Punjab [Annexure: 'U', Total 07 cases, Sr. Nos. 505 to 511] 432. In this Block/category, there are total 07 writ petitions, out of which 6 have been filed by the Irrigation Department, Punjab (detail of cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. Block/Category of Irrigation Department, Punjab [Annexure: 'U', Total 07 cases, Sr. Nos. 505 to 511] 432. In this Block/category, there are total 07 writ petitions, out of which 6 have been filed by the Irrigation Department, Punjab (detail of cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 of Annexure 'U'), challenging the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala. One writ petition i.e. CWP No. 20647 of 2015 (detail mentioned at Sr. No. 511 of Annexure 'U'), has been filed by the employees against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur. 433. Employees in the writ petition mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 of Annexure 'U', which have been filed by the Department, were/are working as Beldar, Sweeper, and Boatman, and posted at Ferozepur and Bara Khua, Patiala. And the employees/petitioners in CWP No. 20647 of 2015, were/are working as Research Assistant/Research Officer, Lab Attendant and Assistant Lab Attendant, and posted at Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, at the relevant point of time. 434. The aforementioned set of employees approached the Tribunal(s) by filing applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturday, prima facie, on the basis of the notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra) and in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). 435. While examining these writ petitions, this Court has come across one detailed order dated 23.07.2003, issued vide Office Order No. 366/5NGE-II/2003, dated 24.07.2003, passed by the Chief Engineer/KAD, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh, and copy of which is available on the file of CWP No. 25518 of 2012 as Annexure P-3. Perusal of the aforementioned order dated 23/24.07.2003, reveals that the same has been passed in compliance of the order dated 31.10.2002, passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in CWP No. 17640 of 2002, whereby a direction was given to the respondents in the said writ petition, to consider the representation filed by the petitioners and decide the same in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). The order dated 31.10.2002, passed in CWP No. 17640 of 2002, was also followed and applied subsequently in various other writ petitions, numbers of which have been given in the order dated 23/24.07.2003, passed by the Chief Engineer. The order dated 31.10.2002, passed in CWP No. 17640 of 2002, was also followed and applied subsequently in various other writ petitions, numbers of which have been given in the order dated 23/24.07.2003, passed by the Chief Engineer. The detailed order dated 23/24.07.2003 (Annexure P-3 attached with CWP No. 25518 of 2012), uncovers various aspects of these 7 writ petitions and also bring to fore some of the facts, which were never disclosed or pleaded by the employees in the writ petitions filed by them before this Court or in the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed subsequently before the Tribunals. Though the aforementioned order dated 23/24.07.2003, is lengthy, but for the just decision of these 7 writ petition, it is imperative for this Court to reproduce the same hereunder:- "Punjab P.W.D. Irrigation Branch Head Office Chandigarh Office Order No. 366/5NGE-11/2003 Dated 24.7.2003 Whereas the P.W.D Field and Workshop Workers Union Punjab (Regd.) Branch Amritsar through its President Mohinder Singh Bedi had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 17773 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 18827 of 2002 Balwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, No. 18988 of 2002 Desa Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, No. 18954 of 2002, 18955 of 2002-Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1087 of 2002-Bakshi Ram and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 18605 of 2002-Tilak Ram and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 18490 of 2002-Gurdial Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, 4004 of 2003-Sham Lal v. U.O.I. and Punjab State, 1816 of 2003-Balwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, 4167 of 2003- Rajvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 3855 of 2003- Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab, 17959 of 2002- Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 19560 of 2002-Mangat Ram and Others v. State of Punjab, 18590 of 2002- Gurbax Singh and Others v. State of Punjab 18476 of 2002- Raj Pal and Others v. State of Punjab, 5775 of 2003 Pawan Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab, 4957 of 2003 Harish Chander and Others v. State of Punjab, C.M. No. 37313 of 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 18988 of 2002. C.W.P. No. 6219/2002-Basant Lal & Others v. Pb State. The Hon'ble Court has passed the following orders as under:- C.W.P. No. 17773 of 2002 N.K. Sodhi. C.W.P. No. 6219/2002-Basant Lal & Others v. Pb State. The Hon'ble Court has passed the following orders as under:- C.W.P. No. 17773 of 2002 N.K. Sodhi. J (Oral) The facts of this case are similar to the facts in the civil writ petition No. 17640 of 2002 which was disposed of by us on October 31 of 2002. Same order as in Civil Writ Petition No. 17640 of 2002. November 1, 2002 Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, Judge, Sd/- S.S. Grewal, Judge The relevant portion of Civil Writ Petition No. 17640 of 2002 is reproduced as under:- " After hearing counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the writ petition, we dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the Petitioners and decide the same in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. Petitioners may, if so advised, file a supplementary representation within two weeks from today and in case such a representation is filed, the same will also be heard and decided by the competent authority within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the petitioners are found entitled to any monetary benefits the same shall be released to them and also to other similarly situated employee, without any further delay. October 31, 2002 Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, Judge, Sd/- S.S. Grewal, Judge." Whereas the petitioners of the above mentioned writ petition are working as Beldar. Mate, Workmunshi, Workmistary Driver, Cleaner, Workmate, Painter and white washer etc. The petitioners have claimed for extra wages to be paid to them on account of being required to discharge duties for six working days in a week. They have stated that they are posted in the field wherein they have to attend their duty even on Saturday. The petitioners have based their claim on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Employees Union (Regd), Sirhind and others v. State of Punjab and others (2000) 9 SCC 432 . They have stated that they are posted in the field wherein they have to attend their duty even on Saturday. The petitioners have based their claim on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Employees Union (Regd), Sirhind and others v. State of Punjab and others (2000) 9 SCC 432 . Whereas in the above said judgement the main issue involved was regarding the clerks and peon working at the Octroi Check-post and barriers run by the Municipal Committees constituted and functioning under Punjab Municipal Act 1911 are entitled to be paid for each Saturday on which they have worked at the octroi check-post and barriers while their colleagues in the offices of Municipal Committee concerned were permitted to enjoy those Saturdays as holidays. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a detailed judgment have held that the said employees working on octroi check-post and barriers are entitled for the extra wages for each of the Saturday on which they have worked while their colleagues enjoy the benefit of Saturdays. The petitioners have sought through the writ petition that the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is squarely covering the claim of the petitioners in this writ petition. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated......... has allowed the writ petition and directed the State of Punjab to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the rights of the petitioners stand settled vide the above said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Whereas the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Employees Union (Regd) Sirhind and others (2000) 9 Supreme Court 432 relied by the Division Bench has no applicability at all in this case as there is no reality at all between the claim of the petitioners therein and those of the employees of the Municipal Committee. The distinguish features between the two set of employees namely: i) that in irrigation department Beldar, Mate, Workmunshi. Workmistary. Drivers, Cleaner, Workmate, Painter, white washer etc. are only required to work in the field because these posts has been sanctioned for works of specific nature in the field for maintenance, repair and execution work. These employees are never posted in the offices and no such post exit in the offices. Workmistary. Drivers, Cleaner, Workmate, Painter, white washer etc. are only required to work in the field because these posts has been sanctioned for works of specific nature in the field for maintenance, repair and execution work. These employees are never posted in the offices and no such post exit in the offices. There is no equation of their post with the clerical staff and other office staff as in the case of octroi staff working in octroi checkpost and barriers and office of the Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation etc. ii) that transfer of these employees to the office and vice versa to the field is not permissible as there is no common cadre between the posts in the field as mentioned above and those in the offices. Thus, the petitioner herein the writ petition are a separate class and they are posted against the posts sanctioned for the specific work in the field and therefore their duties and hours of works are of different nature. iii) that pleadings of the writ petition do not disclose at all any person belonging to the cadre to which the petitioners belong have been discharging duties for a period of five working days per week that is not required to work on Saturday. Above all the petitioners have not based their claim that the determination of wages payable to the petitioners are arbitrary in any manner nor is the case that similarly situated persons like the petitioners are working for lesser number of days and drawing the same emoluments. C.M. No. 37313 of 2002 in Civil writ petition No. 18988 of 2002 has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.11.2002. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swantantar Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta had passed the following orders: "Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocates, for the petitioners. Notice. Mr. Salil Sagar, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties concede that this matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.3.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1998 (Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others v. State of Punjab and other) Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. Allowed in the same terms. November 29, 2002. Learned counsel for the parties concede that this matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.3.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1998 (Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others v. State of Punjab and other) Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. Allowed in the same terms. November 29, 2002. Sd/- Swantanter Kumar, Judge Sd/- Hemant Gupta, Judge The petitioners are claiming on the basis of said order that their case has been considered in the light of the judgment dated 15.3.2000 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997-Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind v. State of Punjab and others as explained in the above foregoing paras. Whereas the petitioners in the present writ petitions are working in the irrigation department as mentioned above. Their duties are different from the Municipal Corporation employees. Their duties are on the workshop in the irrigation department and other field works as all members of worker/employee counterpart to the petitioners are working in the offices as in the case of clerk and peon in Municipal Committee as per judgment dated 15.3.2000 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997. Only weekly rest is available to these workers. Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1987 is concerning the clerks and peons working in the offices and on the octroi check-posts. Therefore, it is very evident that the facts and circumstances of civil appeal No 8434 of 1997 are totally different from that of the matter in the present writ petitions belonging to Irrigation Department. Thus the judgment dated 15.3.2000 which was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 is not applicable in the case of petitioners, of Irrigation Department. Whereas, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project Work Charge Establishment issued Standing Orders 1988. These standing orders shall come into force in accordance with Section VII of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and shall be applicable to all workmen employed by the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project Shahpurkandi except those who are excluded from the purview of Act by virtue of the definition of the workmen and such other employees who are on deputation to the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project from various State Govt. Central Govt. or Electricity Board. The Standing orders rule 20 regarding weekly rest/ compensatory off. Central Govt. or Electricity Board. The Standing orders rule 20 regarding weekly rest/ compensatory off. It is clearly mentioned in the said rule. The relevant portion of the said rule is reproduced as under- 20. A workman will be granted paid rest on a fixed week day. In the interest of work, rest day may be changed by the Sub Divisional Officer incharge at his discretion. 20.2 A workman who cannot be allowed weekly rest on the specified day or works overtime, shall be granted a compensatory off in lieu within 90 days. 20.3 A workman may be permitted to prefix and suffix National Festival day religious holidays with weekly rest/compensatory off Note:- Week Means And Includes The Days From Monday To Sunday. Secondly, the Deputy Labour Commissioner the certifying Officer Punjab had issued standing order certification vide No. SO/8400 Dated 8.4.94 copy of the same is to Mukerian Hydel Construction Division Talwara Township in pursuance of the requirement of the section 5 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946. The rule 19 of the standing orders regarding weekly rest is reproduced as under.- 19. Weekly Rest:- (1) A workmen will be granted paid rest in a fixed week day, if he has worked for 4 days or more in a week in conjunction with leave with or without wages. In the interest of work, fixed rest day may be changed by the SDO Incharge at his discretion. (2) A workman may be permitted to prefix and suffix, national and religious Holidays with weekly rest. (3) Rest in lieu of over time work on holidays, previous weekly rest deferred by the SDO incharge in the interest of the work and holidays on the national and religious occasions and leave with wages will be counted in arriving at four working days for the purpose of weekly rest. Whereas on the basis of said standing orders the workcharge employees of Irrigation Dept. are only eligible for weekly rest as per the said instructions. The extra holidays of Saturday and Sunday is not admissible as per said standing orders. Whereas the workman are working in the work of Irrigation department work for 8 hours regarding Dam constriction maintenance and repair of canals in the Punjab State. When they are working more than 8 hours compensatory leave is being given to them. The extra holidays of Saturday and Sunday is not admissible as per said standing orders. Whereas the workman are working in the work of Irrigation department work for 8 hours regarding Dam constriction maintenance and repair of canals in the Punjab State. When they are working more than 8 hours compensatory leave is being given to them. Whereas, it is worthwhile to mention here that in addition to weekly rest which is being allowed in rotation to the worker the following holidays are also being provided to the workers in the calender year with full wages and allowances.- 1. Republic day 2. Birthday of Sh. Guru Ravidass Ji. 3. Hola 4. Baisakhi 5. Martyrdom day of Sh. Guru Arjan Dev ji. 6. Independent Day 7. Janamashtmi 8. Birthday of Mahatma Gandhi ji. 9. Dushehra 10. Birthday of Sh. Balmik Ji 11. Diwali. 12. Birthday of Sh. Guru Nanak Dev ji. 13. Ram Naumi 14. Birthday of Sri. Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is, pertinent to mention here that the decision meant for the employees of Municipal Committee/Corporation pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can not be adopted as a general policy for the employees/worker of the Irrigation Department. I undersigned have examined the case of the employees of Municipal Committee/Corporation with the Irrigation Deptt. and there is no similarity in both the workers. The workers of the Irrigation Department are being allowed compensatory leave for the work done on Saturday etc. and other extra hours if so needed. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of any benefits in view of the judgement dated 15.3.2000 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997. So the claim of the petitioners has been considered and hereby rejected being devoid of any merit. Chandigarh Er. Jasbir Singh Dated: 23.07.2003 Chief Engineer/KAD Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh" In nutshell, after understanding the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Sirhind's case (supra) carefully and comparing the conditions of service, nature of duties, provisions of various standing orders, benefits like compensatory leaves and other holidays etc., which are applicable to the employees of the Irrigation Department, Punjab, vis-a-vis the employees of the Octroi Department of Municipalities; the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, passed a well reasoned speaking order dated 23/24.07.2003, for rejecting the claim of the employees working in the Irrigation Department. Moreover, nothing is forthcoming on record, whether the said order was ever challenged or set aside at a later stage. 436. It is also not the case that the aforementioned order dated 23/24.07.2003, was not brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal. For example, para 14 of the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, which is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 25518 of 2012, is reproduced as under:- "14. It has further been submitted by Sh. Krishan Lal, Jr. Assistant, representing the respondents that case of similarly situated employees was considered by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order No. 366/5NGE/2003 dated 24/7/2003, but such employees were not found entitled to the benefits claimed by applicant. Moreover, there is no pre-existing right which entitles applicant to approach this Tribunal by moving application under section 33C(2) of the Act. So, application being not maintainable is otherwise liable to be dismissed." In para 19 of its order dated 01.10.2012, the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, dealt with the order dated 24.07.2003, in the following manner:- "19. Here it would be pertinent to mention that no law/byelaws/ notification or instructions were promulgated by State of Punjab requiring the employees including the applicant for performing duty for six days in a week. There is also nothing on record to suggest that employees of field staff are not entitled to the benefits of notification dated April 7, 1980 adopting five days a week by the State of Punjab for its employees. Moreover, the order passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order No. 366/5NGE/2003 dtaed 24/7/2003 cannot be said to has been passed in pursuance or compliance of the observations made in the judgement Ex.-A1 by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court. This order cannot over-ride the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case Municipal Employee Union Registered Sirhind & others v. State of Punjab (in Civil Appeal 8434/1997) decided on 15/03/2000 and by the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No. 4004/2003 titled as Sham Lal & others v. State of Punjab and others. ....." 437. ....." 437. Thus, it is clear that without even going through the contents of the order dated 24.07.2003, passed by the Chief Engineer, or realizing that there is no similarity in the service conditions of the employees of the Irrigation Department with that of the employees of Octroi Department, in whose case the judgment in Sirhind's case (supra) was passed, the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which are subject matter of these 7 writ petitions, have been allowed by the respective Tribunals. 438. The candid and un-rebutted stand of the Irrigation Department is that the employees who have filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are governed by different set of rules, which are separate for field staff and separate for office staff, their services are not inter-changeable, and there is no common seniority. Even there are certain standing orders, which are applicable for the employees posted for construction, maintenance and repairs etc. of Ranjit Sagar Dam and other irrigation projects in the State of Punjab, whereunder it is specifically provided about working hours, admissibility of holidays, grant of compensatory leaves in lieu of working on holidays or over-time etc. Thus, this Court finds that the component of discrimination is not available to the field staff employees of the Irrigation Department. 439. Other than this, in these 7 writ petitions, the employees / applicants / respondents herein, have primarily relied upon the notification dated 07.04.1980, whereby instead of two Saturdays in a month, it was decided by the State of Punjab that all the four Saturdays in a month would be treated as Holidays. The applicants/employees have also relied upon the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court); thereby disposing of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) and submitted that they are entitled for extra wages for their working on Saturdays. However, in the applications filed by the employees, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, there appears to be no details as to how they can equate their right with the employees who were parties in Sirhind's case (supra). 440. The employees were also required to lead evidence to the effect that their services are inter-transferable, they have a common seniority list and are governed by one set of rules. 440. The employees were also required to lead evidence to the effect that their services are inter-transferable, they have a common seniority list and are governed by one set of rules. Learned Tribunals have not gone into the said aspect and perhaps were convinced while drawing a presumption that the employees are eligible to extra wages for working on Saturdays, at par with the employees working in the Octroi department, whose rights were dealt with by the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). However, such a presumption is unsustainable because the party who alleges a particular fact is casted with a duty to prove the same by leading positive/affirmative evidence in that regard. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, any such claim or its entitlement, cannot be created first time by the Court in favour of the employees. 441. The observation made by this Court in para No. 154 above, concerning the clarification issued by the Punjab Government, as per which the field staff was not entitled to enjoy the benefit of holiday on Saturday, is also applicable to the facts of the present 7 writ petitions. 442. The argument of the employees claiming right of extra wages for working on Saturdays on the strength of the notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra), issued by the State of Punjab and the dictum of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), is not enough to derive any right, which may be called as pre-existing right, for starting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, pleaded case of the Irrigation Department in these writ petitions is that there is neither any common seniority list nor the services are inter-transferable. 443. In view of above discussion, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in 07 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 511 of Annexure 'U'), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 are hereby allowed, whereas writ petition mentioned at Sr. No. 511 of Annexure 'U', filed by the employees, stands dismissed. Resultantly, all the applications filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. General Observations, Directions And Final Outcome of The Writ Petitions 444. Accordingly, the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 are hereby allowed, whereas writ petition mentioned at Sr. No. 511 of Annexure 'U', filed by the employees, stands dismissed. Resultantly, all the applications filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. General Observations, Directions And Final Outcome of The Writ Petitions 444. After examining all the 511 writ petitions, by carving out the categories and recording of the reasons therein, I do find that employees, who filed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have misplaced their claims and, thus, misguided themselves. In fact, most of the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees do not contain the details of the service conditions and the rules by which such services are governed. Therefore, it appears that under misconception and without understanding the spirit of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), the claim was placed before the respective Industrial Tribunals. 445. A detailed study of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) reveals that it is in two parts. Hon'ble Apex Court firstly analysed the service conditions and the relevant rules of the office staff employees and the field staff employees of the Octroi Department and then reached to the conclusion that the entitlement of both the groups of employees is required to be placed at one level. Thus, a kind of declaration qua their status is given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgement. Thereupon, the employees of Octroi Department were relegated for availing their remedy i.e. to file application(s) before the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, to place their entitlement before it under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 446. In maximum number of cases/categories the concerned Industrial Tribunals have erred in law by directly entertaining the applications moved by the employees under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, without there being any finding or declaration/order/decree/award holding the entitlement for monetary benefits for any valid reason, after examining the service conditions and the rules applicable to the service. 447. Even maximum number of employees have not referred the rules applicable to their Service and in what manner their right is made out, so as to raise the claim for recovery of money as arrears of extra wages/compensation by moving application(s) under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. 447. Even maximum number of employees have not referred the rules applicable to their Service and in what manner their right is made out, so as to raise the claim for recovery of money as arrears of extra wages/compensation by moving application(s) under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Broadly it appears that with the declaration of judgement in Sirhind's case (supra), every employee in the State of Punjab, working in various departments, started assuming that they are required to perform duty for 5 days in a week only. While assuming so, the conditions of service and the applicable rules have been completely missed out. 448. Stretching out further, the issue of entitlement of money, if any, exists in favour of any employee, this Court is of the view that such a valid claim in law, can be said as a right of an employee, accruing every month as a recurring cause of action, until the amount of wages, for which such employee is entitled under the rules, is paid to him/her. Therefore, this Court would like to leave all the claims open for the employees to firstly get the entitlement of extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays/holidays as proved/declared through appropriate proceedings before the concerned Forum, and thereafter by calculating the amount in terms of money, the application may be filed again under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. 449. In case such application(s), under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is moved by the concerned employee or set of employees, with complete details in regard of conditions of service and the rules under which the service is governed, and also the details of the already existing right accruing in the shape of money or worth to be calculated in terms of money, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Central Bank of India Ltd. (supra), Ganesh Razak (supra), Kankuben (supra), and Bombay Chemical India Ltd. (supra), such application would be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year, as per law. It is clarified that in case, application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, does not contain specific pleadings with details regarding pre-existing right worth to be executed by effecting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, no such application would be entertained. 450. It is clarified that in case, application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, does not contain specific pleadings with details regarding pre-existing right worth to be executed by effecting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, no such application would be entertained. 450. Concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal would also satisfy itself as to whether the entitlement/right of the employee qua the extra wages/compensation claimed, has already been declared by way of any Court order or an administrative order passed by the concerned authority. It will be obligatory upon such employee while filing the application to explain the conditions of service, rules applicable to his/her service and the basis over which the application is filed to recover extra wages/compensation in terms of money. These observations/directions are issued by this Court after going through the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra) and Sat Pal Puri's case (supra). Final Outcome of The Writ Petitions 451. While dealing with the writ petitions under various Blocks/categories, after making detailed discussion and observations, all the 511 writ petitions have been decided by this Court. However, for the facility of reference and convenience, their final outcome is summarized as under:- Sr. No. Category Final Outcome 1. Fire Brigade [127 cases (Sr. Nos. 1 to 127 of Annexure 'B')] Writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 of Annexure 'B' are dismissed and Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 53 to 127 of Annexure 'B' are allowed. Resultantly, all the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees being worthless, stand dismissed. 2. Octroi & Octroi + Fire Brigade [3 cases (Sr. Nos. 128 to 130 of Annexure 'C')] Writ Petition mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure 'C' stands dismissed. Those employees/petitioners, who are working in the Fire Brigade, and have approached this Court, by filing CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002, respectively, have no case for seeking 'extra wages' in lieu of the duty performed on Saturdays/holidays. Accordingly, both the writ petitions qua the members of the Fire Brigade are hereby dismissed. At the same time, the reasoning adopted by this Court in CWP No. 11624 of 2015 (Sr. Accordingly, both the writ petitions qua the members of the Fire Brigade are hereby dismissed. At the same time, the reasoning adopted by this Court in CWP No. 11624 of 2015 (Sr. No. 128 of Annexure 'C'), would be followed and applied qua those employees/petitioners, who were/are working in the Octroi Wing of the Municipalities, in the same terms as has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra). Such employees/petitioners would be entitled to seek their remedy in view of Sirhind's case (supra), by filing exhaustive applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, if so advised. However, said exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, and such claim would depend upon the law of limitation on the subject matter, if any operates. 3. Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads), Punjab [82 cases (Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure 'D')] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure 'D' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 4. Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab [12 cases (Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure 'E')] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure 'E' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 5. Punjab Roadways [95 cases (Sr. Nos. 225 to 319 of Annexure 'F')] Writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 225 to 316 of Annexure 'F', are allowed, and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees therein are deemed to be dismissed. Writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 317 to 319 of Annexure 'F', and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are dismissed. 6. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) [9 cases (Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure 'G')] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure 'G' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 7. Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government [89 cases (Sr. Nos. 329 to 417 of Annexures 'H' to 'N')] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure 'G' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 7. Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government [89 cases (Sr. Nos. 329 to 417 of Annexures 'H' to 'N')] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 329 to 382 and 384 to 417 of Annexures 'H' to 'N' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. CWP No. 09719 of 2013 (mentioned at Sr. No. 383 of Annexure 'J') stands dismissed. 8. Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab [34 cases (Sr. Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure 'O')] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure 'O' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 9. Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board [28 cases (Sr. Nos. 452 to 479 of Annexure 'P')] 23 writ petitions, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 452 to 472, 478 & 479 of Annexure 'P', are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Remaining 5 writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 473 to 477 of Annexure 'P' are dismissed. 10. Health Department, Punjab [1 case (Sr. No. 480 of Annexure 'Q')] Writ Petition mentioned at Sr. No. 480 of Annexure 'Q' stands allowed and the application, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees is deemed to be dismissed. 11. Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab [2 cases (Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure 'R')] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure 'R' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 12. Sainik Welfare, Punjab [1 case (Sr. No. 483 of Annexure 'S')] Writ Petition mentioned at Sr. No. 483 of Annexure 'S' stands allowed and the application, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employee is deemed to be dismissed. 13. Punjab Mandi Board [21 cases (Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T')] Writ Petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 14. 13. Punjab Mandi Board [21 cases (Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T')] Writ Petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure 'T' are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 14. Irrigation Department, Punjab [7 cases (Sr. No. 505 to 511 of Annexure 'U')] Writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 of Annexure 'U' are allowed, whereas writ petition mentioned at Sr. No. 511 of Annexure 'U', filed by the employees, stands dismissed. Resultantly, all the applications filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 452. Before parting with the judgment, this Court is grateful to Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate - Amicus Curiae, for sparing his invaluable time to assist this Court in these writ petitions. He devoted time and energy willingly and worked smilingly (and that too gratis). His efforts and contribution are worthy of great commendation. 453. Even there was a lot of input of physical and mental exercise, while dealing with huge bunch matter of 511 cases, as Letters Patent Bench, vide judgement dated 06.12.2018, passed in Gurmeet Singh's case (supra), expressed its expectation to deal with every petition separately. To meet out the said purpose, all required assistance has been provided by my Court staff, such as Special Secretary, Private Secretary, Reader and Restorers etc., especially in the absence of the material assistance of the counsel, who did not appear at the time of hearing of petitions. Even the Law Researchers, namely, Mr. Akinchan Aggarwal and Ms. Ipshita Arora, who are/were attached to this Court, also provided their worthy assistance. The job of categorisation of the writ petitions into different blocks, and compilation of particulars of the employees, writ petition wise, as depicted in Annexures 'A' to 'U', which was a tidy job, has been accomplished by Mr. Prashant Kapoor, Special Secretary, who made himself available dedicatedly even on holidays, thereby making my exercise comfortable. I would be failing in my pious duty if the work done by my complete Court staff is not appreciated.