Govt Employees Can't Assume 5-Day Work-Week: Punjab & Haryana HC Decides 511 Pleas Seeking Extra Wages For Working On Saturdays

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that Government employees cannot assume that they are only required to work for five days in a week and they cannot claim compensation as a matter of right for working on Saturdays.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth disposed of 511 pleas of government employees seeking extra wages for working on Saturdays, in various departments of the Punjab Government.

In a judgment spanning 414 pages, which was reserved before the summer vacation, the Court opined that the granting of extra wages will depend on the service rules applicable to each employee.

The judge further elucidated that, until an employee proves himself to be completely covered with the principle laid down in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others vs State of Punjab and others (Sirhind's case) (2000), it cannot be concluded that the right qua "extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays" has already been determined in favour of such employees.

The Court concluded that the entitlement of extra wages for working on Saturdays will depend on, "declaration/ order/ decree/ award holding the entitlement for monetary benefits for any valid reason, after examining the service conditions and the rules applicable to the service."

It explained that in Sirhind's case, two sets of employees were before the Supreme Court:

(i) Employees, who were deputed for office working and were enjoying the Saturdays and Sundays as completely 'off day'; and

(ii) Employees of the same department deputed on official duties in the field area, and also required to attend such duties on Saturdays or holidays, other than the desk work in the office, but were not paid any extra wages in lieu thereof.

Apex Court found that the duties of these two sets of employees are inter-changeable because any employee working in the office and enjoying two complete 'off days', i.e. Saturdays and Sundays, at the time of need or exigencies of Service, could be deputed for the field duty also, even on Saturdays and holidays. It was also concluded by the Apex Court that there is a common seniority list of both sets of the employees and they are all governed by one set of Service Rules. Thus, it concluded that “the equals cannot be treated differently within one category of equals.”

After analysing the Service Rules the employees were held entitled and the Apex Court granted them liberty to initiate recovery process through the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act).

Justice Vashisth said that "without understanding the very genesis of the principle of law discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sirhind's case (supra), employees working in various Department, Boards and Municipalities in the State of Punjab, started assuming that the principle of law laid down in Sirhind's case (supra) is universal and applicable for every employee, whosoever is posted on field duty outside the office."

The Court was hearing pleas of employees, working in various municipalities and Government Departments in Punjab, who worked on Saturdays/holidays, claiming for "extra wages", as a matter of right, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The controversy started in 1980, when the Punjab Government introduced the policy of "five days working in a week for its employees," and since then, employees have had the weekend as a holiday

It was submitted that the employees who filed the pleas were mainly posted in field area with only one day off in a week, and denied the benefit of five days working in a week, contrary to other employees who used to work in the offices various other government departments.

Their grievance was that they were working six days a week without getting payed any extra wages as compensation or alternative weekly off for working on Saturdays, hence discrimination has been committed against them.

After examining all the 511 writ petitions the Court determined the question:

“As to whether the employees of different departments/offices of the State of Punjab are entitled to be paid extra wages or not, for the duty performed by them on Saturday, which otherwise is a non-working day being holiday, as there is a concept of working of five days in a week in the Public Offices in the State of Punjab”.

The Court opined that the employees have misplaced their claims without understanding the decision in Sirhind's case, "In fact, most of the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees do not contain the details of the service conditions and the rules by which such services are governed."

"Broadly it appears that with the declaration of judgement in Sirhind's case (supra), every employee in the State of Punjab, working in various departments, started assuming that they are required to perform duty for 5 days in a week only. While assuming so, the conditions of service and the applicable rules have been completely missed out," added the judge.

The Court said that, "the issue of entitlement of money, if any, exists in favour of any employee, this Court is of the view that such a valid claim in law, can be said as a right of an employee, accruing every month as a recurring cause of action, until the amount of wages, for which such employee is entitled under the rules, is paid to him/her."

Hence, the Court left "all the claims open for the employees to firstly get the entitlement of extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays/holidays as proved/declared through appropriate proceedings before the concerned Forum, and thereafter by calculating the amount in terms of money, the application may be filed again under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal."

The judge also said that in application filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act by the employees seeking compensation, the complete details with respect to conditions of service and the rules under which the service is governed, and also the details of the already existing right accruing in the shape of money or worth to be calculated in terms of money should be provided as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. V. P.S. Rajagopalan and other precedent.

The plea would be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year, as per law, the Court directed.

While concluding the judgement, Justice Vashisth thanked all his court staff and Law Researcher for working tirelessly even in vacation stating that "I would be failing in my pious duty if the work done by my complete Court staff is not appreciated."

Advocate Anurag Goyal assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae

Title: Kasturi Lal s/o Kundan Lal v. MC, Amritsar & Ors and 510 connected case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 193

Click here to read/download the order