Temporary Workers Engaged In Maharashtra Public Works Dept Entitled To Holidays On 2nd & 4th Saturdays : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

21 Sept 2024 6:55 PM IST

  • Temporary Workers Engaged In Maharashtra Public Works Dept Entitled To Holidays On 2nd & 4th Saturdays : Supreme Court

    Recently, the Supreme Court granted relief to the temporary workers engaged in the Public Works Department of Maharashtra observing that they are entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each month. The respondents herein were the employees employed by the State's Public Works Department. On 27th February 2004, the respondent...

    Recently, the Supreme Court granted relief to the temporary workers engaged in the Public Works Department of Maharashtra observing that they are entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each month.

    The respondents herein were the employees employed by the State's Public Works Department. On 27th February 2004, the respondent employees were placed on the Converted Temporary Establishment in accordance with the Kalelkar Award.

    The Kalelkar Award, which came into effect in the year 1967, determines the service conditions of the workers working in the Public Works Department at various places or districts under different projects in the State of Maharashtra. Under the Kalelkar award, the Public Works Department workers or the staff are entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each month.

    A government resolution dated Sep. 12, 1980, was passed which stated that except the daily-wage employees, all other categories of employees are entitled to get such public holidays as are sanctioned by the Government for these categories of employees.

    Despite this, the respondents-employees were not extended the benefit of the Kalelkar Award and were asked to work on 2nd and 4th Saturdays and no compensation was paid to them for overtime work.

    The Industrial Court held in favour of the employees and directed the employer-PWD to extend the benefit of the resolution to the employees. The decision of the Industrial Court was upheld by the High Court.

    Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court by the PWD.

    Affirming the impugned decisions, the bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan observed that the respondent employees are entitled to all the holiday benefits and other emoluments stipulated under the Kalelkar Award.

    “It is thus clear that except the daily-wage employees, all other categories of employees are entitled to get such public holidays as are sanctioned by the Government for these categories of employees. The respondent-employees in the present factual matrix fall under the category of temporary employees and not as daily-wage employees. As of 27th February 2004, they have been placed on the Converted Temporary Establishment in accordance with the Kalelkar Award.”, the court observed.

    The court rejected the appellant's contention that the respondents-employees could not be entitled to the benefits under the Kalelkar Award as per another government resolution issued on 27th May 1996.

    “The appellants-employer's reliance on the 27th May, 1996 Circular to deny the complainants their rightful entitlements is misguided and does not withstand scrutiny when compared to more specific and comprehensive provisions of the Kalelkar Award. Consequently, the Circular does not negate the eligibility of the respondent-employees for Government holidays and overtime allowances, and they were rightly granted the relief sought for by the Industrial Court and affirmed by the High Court.”, the court observed.

    Holding that the Industrial Court assigned strong unassailable reasons while granting relief sought for by the respondent employees in terms of the Kalelkar award, the court refused to interfere with the impugned decision.

    Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

    Appearance:

    For Appellant(s) Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Aadarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv.

    For Respondent(s) Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Iduddin, Adv. Mr. Altamash Ahmad, Adv.

    Case Title: THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT & ORS. VERSUS TUKARAM PANDURANG SARAF & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1689 OF 2016

    Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 725
    Click here to read/download the judgment


    Next Story