Saturday Work Alone Won’t Earn Haryana Roadways Mechanic Compensation: P&H HC Sets Aside Award, Permits Fresh Claim For Unpaid Work Beyond 48 Hours

Respondent No. 1, a Mechanic in the technical staff of Haryana Roadways, applied under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking monetary benefits for working on Saturdays when ministerial staff had holidays.

The Tribunal allowed his application, reasoning that the staff could not be divided into different categories for this purpose, and directed the State to calculate and pay the benefits for the preceding three years.

The State challenged that order under Articles 226/227, relying, among other things, on the different duties and working arrangements of technical and ministerial staff and Rule 22 of the Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995.

The High Court considered the Division Bench judgment in State of Haryana v. Durga Dutt, which had set aside materially similar Tribunal orders.

Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was the provision under which respondent No. 1 sought recovery of the claimed benefits.

Under Articles 226/227, the High Court does not ordinarily reappraise facts or substitute its view for that of a Labour Court or Tribunal, but may intervene where an order contains an error of law, rests on an erroneous legal premise, or otherwise warrants supervisory interference.

The Division Bench in State of Haryana v. Durga Dutt held that technical and operational staff, whose duties and working arrangements differ from those of ministerial staff, cannot claim Saturday compensation merely because ministerial staff have that day off; an employee who proves work beyond 48 hours in a week and lack of compensatory leave or other permissible compensation may claim appropriate relief.

Rule 22 of the 1995 Rules, which the State relied upon as applying the Factories Act, 1948 to technical staff, formed part of the State’s case.

The Tribunal granted relief on the premise that technical and ministerial staff could not be treated differently and that Saturday work therefore entitled respondent No. 1 to compensation. The High Court held that this premise was inconsistent with the Division Bench’s ruling, which recognised the distinct duties and working arrangements of the staff categories.

The Tribunal had not determined whether respondent No. 1 actually worked beyond 48 hours in a week or whether any such additional work remained uncompensated. His Saturday work, by itself, could not establish an entitlement to compensatory leave or payment.

The Tribunal’s order therefore warranted supervisory interference.

Respondent No. 1 was left at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for compensation by establishing that he worked beyond 48 hours in a week and received neither compensatory leave nor other permissible compensation.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.