Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 19, 2024 upheld the claims made by temporary employees of the Maharashtra government's Public Works Department for entitlement of holidays on 2nd and 4th Saturdays and for payment of salary equal to one and a half times for the work done by them on those days as per the Kalelkar Award.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan dismissed an appeal filed by the Secretary, Public Works Department against the Bombay High Court's judgment which affirmed the Industrial Court's decision upholding claims by temporary employees.

The court said, "It is not in dispute that the respondent-employees have been taken on Converted Temporary Establishment from February 27, 2004 as per the Kalelkar Award. Under the Kalelkar Award, there is a specific agreement between the parties i.e., the employer and employee in respect of 'holidays'."

"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," the bench noted.

The court noted that as of February 27, 2004, they had been placed on the Converted Temporary Establishment in accordance with the Kalelkar Award. 

"Therefore, the respondent-employees are entitled to all the holiday benefits and other emoluments stipulated under the Kalelkar Award," the bench said.

The court found a contention advanced by the counsel for the appellants-employer that the respondent-employees were not eligible for Government holidays, including the 2nd and 4th Saturdays, based on the Circular issued by the Government on May 27, 1996, fundamentally flawed. 

The Circular pertained specifically to the issues involved in disposed of cases and those pending before the Industrial Court in Bombay. The instructions in this Circular were related to the cancellation of facilities and concessions granted through interim orders in those particular cases. However, the Circular does not govern the employees who were shifted to the Converted Temporary Establishment under the Kalelkar Award, neither does it state that the said employees would be ineligible for the benefits outlined in the Award, such as Government holidays and overtime allowances, the bench pointed out.

"In fact, the provisions of the Kalelkar Award explicitly state that all employees, except those on daily wages, are entitled to these benefits. 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 bench said.

The counsel for the appellant contended that the demand of the respondent-employees for holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays and additional compensation was based on a misinterpretation of the Kalelkar Award and relevant regulations. 

He laid emphasis on the fact that some of the respondent-employees being temporary employees were deputed to work as 'Khansama' and for incidental work at the Guest House at Pusad, where their presence was imperative as important dignitaries such as Chief Minister, other Ministers, Judges of the High Court, Judges of other courts and other Senior Officers visit thereat. These employees are getting one week off regularly, he told.

He said that the demand for holidays and reimbursement of back wages for duties performed on holidays, as well as other benefits typically reserved for permanent staff, was unjustified and untenable in the eyes of law. 

The privileges, including additional holidays and overtime wages, which apply to permanent employees cannot pari passu be extended to respondent-employees, given their status as temporary workers, he argued.

The counsel for respondent employees, on the contrary, contended that the appellants-employer had engaged in unfair labour practices by denying these rightful benefits and by compelling the respondent-employees to work on these designated holidays without paying appropriate overtime compensation.

The bench also opined that the Industrial Court assigned strong unassailable reasons while granting relief sought by the respondent-employees in terms of the Kalelkar award. 

The findings arrived at by the Industrial Court have been reaffirmed by the High Court with the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellants-employer against the Industrial Court’s award. Thus, the impugned judgment of November 15, 2014, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference, the court held.

It directed the appellants-employer to comply with the order passed by the Industrial Court, and later affirmed by the High Court, within a period of eight weeks.

Case Title: The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors Vs Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors