For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate 05/ Dated 21 st June , 2017 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to pay 'Wages for weekly day of rest from December, 2005 to June 2007. Factual Matrix Petitioner is a permanent employee of the respondent no.1 and was appointed on the post of clerk on 11.3.1965. It has been stated that the petitioner worked to the satisfaction of all the concerned and no complaint was ever made against him. Petitioner was posted as Office Superintendent in Sendra Bansjora Colliery since February, 2001 and has been looking after Despatch section (Coal). The service condition of the petitioner is governed by Mines Act, 1952. It has been stated that the respondent had been taking work from the petitioner for all seven days and was not being allowed Compensatory days of rest. However, he was being paid twice his normal wages in lieu of weekly day of rest from December, 2005 till June 2007. The said Compensatory was not paid to the petitioner, he preferred several representations. The petitioner was transferred from Sendra Bansjora Colliery to Tetulmari Colliery by office order dated 9/10.8.2005. It has been further stated that due to shortage of man power the petitioner has worked on all days including Sundays from December 2005 till June 2007 but he has not been paid twice his normal wages in lieu of weekly day of rest inspite of his best efforts. The petitioner was retired w.e.f 1.7.2007 but though several representations was preferred but the same has not been looked into neither any payment has been done. The petitioner has challenged the nonpayment of his compensation amount by way of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vikash Kumar, submits that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of wages for weekly day of rest from December 2005 till June 2007. In view of the provisions as led in Sections 28 and 29 of the Mines Act, 1952 which deals with Compensatory days of rest. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that though several representations were filed but till date the respondent did not care to pay the amount for which he has entitled in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the petitioner was retired on 1.7.2007 but till date the amount has not been paid. Percontra, Mr. A.K.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents BCCL vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph no.10 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:
That the statements made in paragraph15 are denied. It is stated that the petitioner has been paid twice his wages for working on the weekly day of rest (Sunday). Now in terms with the provisions contained in Section 28 and 29 of the Mines Act, 1952 the petitioner has been allowed compensatory weekly rest. In view of the embargo imposed by Sections 28 and 29 of the Mines Act, 1952, the petitioner has been allowed compensatory rest in lieu of working on weekly rest day. The competent Authority of the colliery or any Authority does not have the power to refuse compensatory rest for working on the weekly day of rest. The documents annexed and marked as Annexure1 series with the writ application have not been received by the Sendra Bansjora Colliery or in the office of the Project Officer or even in the office of the Manager. It is denied that compensatory rest has been refused or regretted.Mr. A.K.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondentsBCCL fairly submits that the entire amount has already been paid even as per the requirements of law and what has been envisaged in Sections 28 and
29. The petitioner has been given double amount and he has also been allowed compensatory rest in lieu of working on weekly rest day. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph no.6 of the rejoinder. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been specifically mentioned that paragraph no.6 to 10 of the counteraffidavit reply as stated by the respondents are false and frivolous. In view of the specific stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that amount has not been paid to him and in view of the fact that in the counteraffidavit it has been specifically stated that the entire amount has been paid to the petitioner which has been received. As the payment itself is disputed. Let, the General Manager, Sijua Area respondent no.2 inquire into the matter, if the amount has already been paid to the petitioner as stated by the respondents nothing remains to be paid but if on inquiry it comes that petitioner has not received the said compensatory amount the respondents will furnish a report to the Court by way of affidavit. Let the entire exercise be done within a period of two weeks' after receipt of copy of this order. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Anjali/
Comments