ORDER A.H. Joshi, J.
Page 0210
1. Heard.
2. The Municipal Council has challenged the Judgment of Labour Court delivered while deciding application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The respondent-workman had claimed that he had worked in all 367 days on weekly offs between September, 1987 to July, 1991. According to him, his monthly salary was Rs. 1575-00. He claimed arrears of unpaid wages for having worked on weekly offs, totalling to Rs. 18192-00 and interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.
4. The claim was opposed by the petitioner by filing Written Statement. The employer denied all the three things, namely:
[a] that the respondent-workman had worked on weekly offs;
[b] that he was not given weekly offs, and [c] that he is entitled to wages for alleged work done by him.
The Schedule to the application under Section 33-C(2) giving the calculations was also denied.
5. The workman examined himself in support of claim. He has admitted that he was given the weekly offs after 1st August, 1999, but claimed that it was not given prior. He pleaded that there was no agreement as to the rate of wages payable on weekly offs when he has worked.
6. Evidence of the workman was opposed by oral evidence of the Clerk of the Municipal Council, namely one Mr. Ayub Khan son of Dildar Khan Pathan. He reiterated the same point of the employment being towards public utility services. His defence can better be understood by quoting his deposition as follows:
...The benefits of holidays of 2nd Saturdays and 4th Saturdays and other holidays of the State Government are not applicable to the employees who were working in essential services. There is no settlement or there is no award, or adjudication in favour of applicants in respect of holidays and other holidays for claiming the wages of these days. The applicants are not entitled for any legal dues any claim as claimed from them opponent and their claims are false. The over time work days shown in annexure in Exh.21 are not correct, as well as the working days shown in Exh.16 are also not correct.
[quoted from pages 20 and 21 of the paper-book of Writ Petition].
7. The employer did not adduce any evidence apart from above.
8. In the oral submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Mohokar urged as follows:
[i] That the workman was given alternate offs - compensatory offs whenever he worked on weekly offs.
[ii] The jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) is analogous to adjudication of rights, however, in the present case, the Labour Court has, in fact, adjudicated the claim.
[iii] The course adopted by Labour Court was impermissible in view of settled law and in particular the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Page 0211 Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. 1995 I CLR 170.
9. In so far as first point urged by Mr. Mohokar is concerned, the said is a chance submission. It does not find place in the Written Statement, nor in the oral evidence. The records suggest that the Municipal Council, in fact, did not have defence and it has, therefore, chosen the way of giving a reply of total denial, but has failed in a miserable way in proving its defence.
10. In so far as legal proposition urged by learned Advocate Mr. Mohokar in Point Nos. [ii] and [iii] in the foregoing para is concerned, it is a postulate of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 33C(2), and does not call for any further elucidation.
11. The question, that remains, is whether the exercise of powers by the Labour Court is hit by the said postulate?
12. Now, upon examining what the Labour Court has done, it is clear that the workman is entitled for weekly off. When the workman says that he was employed on weekly offs, but was not paid, he is not claiming any benefit towards a non-existing right. Thereafter what the Court has done is on the proved claim of the workman, calculated wages at the rate given by him. Admittedly, the calculations given by the workman were not disputed by any evidence. The total denial by the employer was found to be futile, as it was not proved. The evidence of employer's witness is no evidence at all in the eye of law.
13. In the circumstances, it would be extremely improper to hold that the Labour Court has failed in exercise of adjudication of rights. All that is seen is that the Court has acted upon settled principles of law and rights of the workman, and simply did the act of assessing and calculating the amount due. In view that the calculations of the workman were not disputed, the Labour Court has accepted those figures.
14. In the aforesaid situation, this Petition has not merit and it is accordingly dismissed.