D.P. Saraf vs S.E.C.L. And Other
2021 Latest Caselaw 1800 Chatt

                               1

                                                         NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

            Order reserved on : 28.07.2021

            Order delivered on : 17.08.2021

                    WPS No. 2902 of 2009

   D.P. Saraf S/o Late Shri K. Anand Sharaf,
    Chief Store Keeper, S.E.C.L., Korba, R/o Qr.
    No.     E­22,    15   Block    Colony    S.E.C.L.   Korba
    C.G.

                                            ­­­­ Petitioner

                           Versus

  1. S.E.C.L. Marfat, C.M.D. Seepat Road Bilapur,
     C.G.

  2. Chief General Manager, SECL, Korba, C.G.

  3. Personal       Manager,   SECL   Manikpur,    District
     Korba, C.G.

  4. Regional Manager, SECL, Korba, C.G.

                                            ­­­­ Respondents

Mr. D.P. Sharaf, petitioner in person. For Respondents/SECL :­ Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal C.A.V. Order (Through Video Conferencing)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ

petition seeking a declaration that the

respondents are not empowered to calculate

26 days for a month and prayed that payment

of wages for weekly day of rest, ever since

his appointment, be directed to be paid to

the petitioner along with damages.

2. The respondents have filed preliminary

objections as well as reply, and additional

supplementary affidavit has also been filed

on 22.07.2021 stating inter­alia that the

petitioner joined the service in the

erstwhile Western Coalfields Limited on the

post of Clerk Grade­II on 14.01.1984 and

retired from the post of Chief Store Keeper

on 30.06.2017. It has further been pleaded

that the petitioner was appointed vide order

dated 14.01.1984 (Annexure P/1) on monthly

salary basis governed by the provisions of

National Coal Wage Agreement (in short

"NCWA") and he was in the category of

workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also

been pleaded that Chapter­II of the NCWA

VIII deals with wages and wage structure

and dearness allowance, governed daily rated

employee, monthly rated employees, and piece

rated employee as worked out on the basis of

the agreement. It was also pleaded that the

monthly rated employee i.e. the petitioner

wage was calculated per month and there was

no variations in the wages based on the

number of working days in the month and

there is also a day of weekly rest at the

end of every week, which falls within the

month. It is also pleaded that in case if an

employee works on the weekly day of rest, he

is paid twice the normal wages for that day

of work. Thus, the monthly wages in respect

of monthly rated employee like the

petitioner is strictly in conformity with

the provisions of the Mines Act and the

Rules made there under particularly Section

28 and other provisions contained in Chapter

VII of the Act of 1952 and there is no legal

provision applicable in the case of the

petitioner which may entitle the petitioner

for payment of any additional amount of wage

for the rest day without work on such day. A

copy of Chapter II and Chapter XII of NCWA

has been annexed. Prayer has been made for

dismissal of the instant writ petition.

3. Petitioner in person would submit that the

petitioner is entitled for wages for the

weekly day of rest and also entitled for

damages and penalty and the entire action of

the respondent­SECL is arbitrary and

illegal. He relied upon the decision of the

Supreme Court in the matter of Workman of

Bombay Port Trust vs. Trustees of Port

Bombay and Another.1, the decision of the

Allahabad High Court in the matter of Jawant

Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut vs. Sub Divisional

Magistrate Meerut and Others2 and that of the

Kerala High Court in the matter of Prison

Reforms Enhancement of Wages of prisoners

ect. Petitioners3 in support his submission.

4. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior counsel

appearing for the respondent/SECL, would

submit that the petitioner is monthly rated

employee and governed by the provisions of 1 AIR 1962 SC 481 2 AIR 1960 Allahabad 724 3 AIR 1983 Kerala 261

the NCWA and throughout his career, he was a

workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and he had

already retired from the post of Chief Store

Keeper on 30.06.2017. He would further

submit that monthly wages in respect of

monthly rated employee like the petitioner

is strictly governed by provisions of the

NCWA and, therefore, he is not entitled for

the relief claimed and the writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties

considered their rival submissions made herein

above and also went through the record with

utmost circumspection.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was

appointed by erstwhile Western Coalfields

Limited on the post of Clerk Grade­II on

14.01.1984 (Annexure P/1) and retired from

the post of Chief Store Keeper on

30.06.2017. Petitioner's appointment was on

monthly salary governed by the provisions of

NCWA and he was workman within the meaning

of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. The respondent­SECL alongwith

supplementary affidavit has filed the copy

of Chapter II of the NCWA, in which the

component of wages have been provided.

Chapter 12.2.0 provides for wages for weekly

day of rest which states as under:­

12.2.0. Wages for Weekly Day of Rest.

Workers in the mines and establishmens governed by Mines Act of Factories Act called upon to the work on the weekly day of rest of the colliery/establishment shall be allowed twice the normal wages.

The aforesaid provisions clearly provides

that worker in the mines and establishments

governed by the Mines Act or the Factories

Act if called upon to work on the weekly day

of rest of the colliery/establishment, shall

be allowed twice the normal wages.

7. Since the petitioner is governed by the

provisions of NCWA including Chapter 12.2.0

in which the wages for weekly day of the

rest to be given only if the workmen are

called upon to work on the weekly day of the

rest, they will be allowed twice the normal

wages but no such provision has been brought

into the notice of this Court, which entitles

the wages for weekly day of rest without being

called upon to work on the weekly day of rest

by the management.

8. The fact remains that the petitioner is

monthly paid employee under the National Coal

Wage Agreement, which has the statutory force

and the petitioner is not entitled for any

claim over and above the wages so prescribed.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this

Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any

relief which has been claimed in the writ

petition. The judgments cited by the

petitioner in person are clearly

distinguishable to the facts of the present

case in view of the findings recorded herein­

above.

9. The writ petition deserves to be and is

accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to

bear their own cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit