Indian Council Of Agricultural ... vs Om Prakash & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2904 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Date of decision: July 10, 2013.

+                                     WP(C)13021-22/2006

          INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ANR.
                                                .....Petitioners
                   Represented by: Mr.B.Vijay Kumar, Advocate with
                                   Mr.B.S.Mor, Advocate

                                            versus

          SHRI FAIYAZ                                           ..... Respondent
                   Represented by:              Mr.G.S.Lohana, Advocate.

                                      WP(C)13221-22/2006

          INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ANR.
                                                     .....Petitioners
                   Represented by: Mr.B.Vijay Kumar, Advocate with
                                   Mr.B.S.Mor, Advocate

                                            versus

          OM PRAKASH & ANR.                      ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr.G.S.Lohana, Advocate.
          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
          HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.9988/2013 in WP(C)13021-22/2006 CM No.9985/2013 in WP(C)13221-22/2006

Early hearing as prayed for in the two applications by the respondent in the above captioned writ petitions are allowed since learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions concedes to the request.

The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) Nos.13021-22/2006 & 13221-22/2006

1. The issue raised in the writ petitions is squarely covered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners as per the decision reported as (1985) 4 SCC 71 Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation. The decision in question held that while computing 240 days for purposes of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, paid holidays have to be included.

2. The decision of the Supreme Court as (2007) 12 SCC 794 Irrigation Research Institute & Anr. Vs. Kirpal Singh has the underlying theme that while determining whether or not a workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year, holidays have to be included.

3. The claim of the workman adjudicated by the Tribunal pertains to a DoPT Scheme notified on September 10, 1993 requiring daily wage worker who had worked for 240 days in any preceding year and in service as on September 10, 1993 to be granted temporary status and thereafter regularized in service as per seniority list maintained. Upon regularization in service the service rendered after acquiring temporary status had to be included for purposes of computing pensionary benefits.

4. The issue before the Tribunal was whether in computing 240 days in the preceding calendar year the actual working days alone as daily wager had to be taken into account or Sundays and other holidays had to be taken into account as well. The Tribunal has held that holidays have to be taken into account. Thus, since the first petitioner and its institute being petitioner No.2 were observing six working days a week with Sunday as a holiday, the respondents who worked from Monday to

Saturday were held entitled to be treated as having worked for the week i.e. seven days and in this manner the number of days work came to more than 240 days. Accordingly, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to grant temporary status to the respondents.

5. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.

6. Needless to state the stay granted in favour of the petitioners is vacated.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE JULY 10, 2013 mamta