State Of Haryana And Others vs Haroop Singh And Another

1-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(245)
CWP No.23592 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision 11.11.2026
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners
Versus
HAROOP SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by
the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory,
Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in LCA No.46 of 2019, whereby the
application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 33-C of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) has been allowed and he
has been held entitled to recover from the petitioners the benefits, as per his
entitlement, for working on Saturdays. A prayer for stay of the impugned
order has also been made.
2. Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case of respondent No.1
before the Tribunal, he is working as a Mechanic, which is a technical post,
in the office of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh. It is
his case that there are three categories of employees in the department, i.e.
operational staff, technical staff and ministerial staff, that the ministerial staff
enjoys all Saturdays and Sundays as holidays whereas he is made to attend
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
duty on Saturdays, and that he is, therefore, entitled to be compensated in
terms of money for the Saturdays on which he worked. He relied upon the
directions issued by this Court in LPA No.482 of 2018 and LPA No.1783 of
2018 for approaching the Tribunal for computation of the benefits under
Section 33-C of the Act of 1947.
3. The petitioners contested the application. Their stand before the
Tribunal was that the services of the technical staff are governed by the
Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service
Rules, 1995 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1995’), Rule 22 whereof provides that the
daily and weekly hours of work of the operational staff and the technical
staff shall be as prescribed in the Factories Act, 1948, that forty-eight hours
of work is taken from the technical staff in six days of a week, that the
holidays notified for the public offices of the Haryana Government are not
applicable to them, and that they are granted weekly rest and more earned
leave than the ministerial staff.
4. The Tribunal framed the issue whether the applicant is entitled
to recover any amount from the respondents and decided it in favour of
respondent No.1. It held that the petitioners were competent to declare six
working days in a week for their entire staff but could not make any
distinction between the industrial and the ministerial staff, that respondent
No.1 is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947,
and that no rule or notification had been placed on record to show that the
technical staff has to work for six days in a week. Consequently, respondent
No.1 was held entitled to the benefits in lieu of working on Saturdays for the
three years preceding the filing of the application, when his counterparts
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
enjoyed the holiday, and the petitioners were directed to calculate the
amount and pay it within four months.
5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said order. Their case in the
petition is that the nature of duties of the technical staff is altogether
different from that of the ministerial staff, that public transport is an essential
service for which the technical staff has to remain available for repair and
maintenance of buses, that the Tribunal ignored Rule 22 of the Rules, 1995,
which makes the Factories Act, 1948 applicable to the technical staff, and
that respondent No.1 has been given more earned leave in lieu of gazetted
holidays and is paid extra wages for the extra or overtime work done by him,
so that he is not entitled to a double benefit. It is also their case that the
impugned order would give a similar cause of action to a large number of
other employees of the department.
6. Learned State counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained, as
the controversy raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the
Division Bench judgment, whereby the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the
Tribunal has been set aside. He further submits that the nature of duties of
the technical staff is altogether different from that of the ministerial staff,
that public transport is an essential service for which the technical staff has
to remain available for repair and maintenance of buses, and that the
Tribunal ignored Rule 22 of the Rules, 1995, which makes the Factories Act,
1948 applicable to the technical staff. He also submits that respondent No.1
has been given more earned leave in lieu of gazetted holidays and is paid
extra wages for the extra or overtime work done by him, so that he is not
entitled to a double benefit.
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the
impugned order has been rightly passed by the Tribunal and does not call for
any interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the record.
9. This Court finds that the controversy raised in the present
petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 20.08.2026 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.20609 of 2022 titled State of
Haryana and others vs. Durga Dutt and another , along with the connected
petitions (for short, ‘the Division Bench judgment’). In the said bunch of
petitions, the challenge was to the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the
Tribunal, by which a finding had been recorded that all the employees
working in the same institution should either be governed by five days a
week or six days a week and could not be bifurcated into two categories, and
the employees who were asked to work on Saturdays had been held entitled
to reimbursement for such work. The issue related to the Transport
Department of the Government of Haryana, where the operational staff, the
technical staff and the ministerial staff work. The Division Bench recorded
the following findings, which are reproduced hereunder:-
“17. The duties performed by the ministerial staff are
totally different from the duties performed by the
technical and operational staff, as they are required to
operate the buses and make sure that the buses remain
operational throughout the week. Consequently, they
work on a roster basis and do not work by fix office
hours i.e. from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., while such
working hours are observed by the ministerial staff. Once
the operational duties are performed within a roster
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
basis and the ministerial staff works on fixed office
hours, the technical and operational staff cannot claim
parity with the ministerial staff merely for the purpose of
claiming five-days a week and overtime pay for the
Saturday.
“18. Hence, the directions issued by the Tribunal in
placing all the employees in one bracket and directing
that there should be either five-days a week or a six-day
week for all employees and any employee, who is asked
to work on Saturday, is entitled for the compensatory
overtime pay for such day, cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law.
“24. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and
circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.10.2021
(Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, directing the
petitioners to treat all the three wings in one bracket,
despite their different nature of duties and different
working hours, cannot be sustained. The said order is not
based upon the actual working pattern of the department
and therefore, the same is incorrect and accordingly, the
impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) is
hereby set aside.
“25. Further, it may be noticed that it has already come
on record that the employees, are required to work for a
period of 48 hours in a week and such 48 hours gets
completed in six days a week. In case, any
employee/respondents, whether working on a daily-shift
basis or on a roster basis, is required to perform duties
beyond 48 hours in a week and such fact is duly proved,
the extra work performed by the employee/respondents
beyond 48 hours should be compensated by the grant of
compensatory leave or by compensatory salary. In case,
any respondents/employee concerned, who have worked
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
beyond 48 hours in a week, in case, not paid, will be at
liberty to file an appropriate application before the
Tribunal claiming such compensatory salary by proving
that he/she had worked beyond 48 hours in a week and
had not been granted compensatory leave or other
permissible compensation for such extra work, therefore,
overtime payment should be paid to such employee.”
10. The Division Bench thereafter set aside the order dated
26.10.2021 and allowed the bunch of writ petitions in the above terms, with
the liberty to the respondents-employees as recorded in paragraph 25
reproduced above. It is also noticed that LPA No.123 of 2020 titled
Purshotam Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others , to which a
reference is made in the present petition, was disposed of by the Division
Bench on the same date as not pressed, in view of the separate order passed
in CWP No.20609 of 2022.
11. At this stage, it requires to be noticed that this Court, while
exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India over orders passed by Labour Courts/Industrial
Tribunals, does not ordinarily sit in appeal over findings of fact or
reappreciate the evidence merely to substitute one possible view for another.
However, interference is warranted where the order suffers from an error of
law, proceeds on an erroneous legal premise or otherwise warrants exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction.
12. In the present case, the impugned order stands on the same legal
footing as the orders considered by the Division Bench. Respondent No.1
admittedly claims the benefit on the basis of his working on Saturdays as a
member of the technical staff, while the ministerial staff enjoys holidays on
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
those days. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the technical and
ministerial staff could not be treated differently and, on that basis, granted
the benefit in lieu of working on Saturdays. The very premise on which the
impugned order proceeds has been held to be unsustainable by the Division
Bench.
13. The distinction between the working arrangements of the
ministerial staff and the technical and operational staff has now been
authoritatively examined by the Division Bench. The mere fact that
respondent No.1, being a member of the technical staff, is required to work
on Saturdays, when the ministerial staff is enjoying a holiday, cannot by
itself confer an entitlement to compensatory leave or monetary
compensation. The relevant consideration is whether the employee has
actually worked beyond 48 hours in a week and whether such extra work has
remained uncompensated.
14. The Tribunal, while granting the benefit for the Saturdays on
which respondent No.1 had worked, did not determine his entitlement on the
aforesaid basis. Its approach, therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the
law laid down by the Division Bench. The fact that the impugned order
herein is also dated 26.10.2021, has been passed by the same Tribunal and
proceeds on the same reasoning leaves no scope for taking a different view.
No distinguishing feature warranting a departure from the ratio of the
Division Bench judgment is discernible from the record.
15. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal in
LCA No.46 of 2019 is set aside, in terms of the Division Bench judgment
dated 20.08.2026 passed in CWP No.20609 of 2022 and connected petitions.
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8-
CWP-23592 of 2022 (O&M) -
Respondent No.1 shall, however, be at liberty to file an appropriate
application before the Tribunal, in terms of paragraph 25 of the Division
Bench judgment, by establishing that he had worked beyond 48 hours in a
week and had not been granted compensatory leave or other permissible
compensation for such extra work.
16. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
11.11.2026
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.13 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document