1. The petitioner, namely, the management of Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation in both the cases, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, has filed these two writ petitions. The Labour Court, by the impugned common order, has computed the amounts payable to the first respondent in each case under S. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The first respondent who is common in both the cases was working as a driver in the petitioner-Corporation. He was required to work on certain rest days in order to prevent dislocation of bus service. No doubt, he was given compensatory holiday subsequently. Notwithstanding that, the first respondent claimed wages as per S. 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, which was accepted by the Labour Court.
3. The Court below has held that Ss. 19(2), 20 and 26 of the said Act are independent of each other and, therefore, the first respondent is entitled to extra wages as per S. 26 of the Act apart from the compensatory holiday.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the conclusion of the Court below by inviting the attention of the Court to any other provision or ruling of this Court or any other High Court.
5. To decide the issue, we have to look into the relevant sections, namely, Ss. 19, 20 and 26 which read as follows:
“19. Weekly rest.— (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules providing for a day of rest in every period of seven days, which shall be allowed to all motor transport, workers.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec.(1), an employer may, in order to prevent any dislocation of a motor transport service require a motor transport worker to work on any day of rest which is not a holiday so, however, that the motor transport worker does not work for more than ten days consecutively without a holiday for a whole day intervening.
(3) Nothing contained in Sub-sec. (1) shall apply to any motor transport worker whose total period of employment including any day spent on leave is less than six days.
20. Compensatory day of rest.— Where, as a result of any exemption granted to an employer under the provisions of this Act from the operation of S. 19, a motor transport worker is deprived of any of the days of rest to which he is entitled under that section, the motor transport worker shall be allowed within the month in which the days of rest are due to him or within two months immediately following that month, compensatory days of rest of equal number to the days of rest so lost.
26. Extra wages for overtime.— (1) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the first proviso to S. 13 or where he is required to work on any day of rest under Sub-sec.(2) of “S. 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the overtime work or the work done on the day of rest, as the case may be.
(2) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the second proviso to S. 13, he shall be entitled to wages in respect of the overtime work at such rates as may be prescribed.
(3) Where an adolescent motor transport worker is required to work on any day of rest under Sub-sec.(2) of S. 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the work done on the day of rest.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘ordinary rate of wages’ in relation to a motor transport worker means his basic wages plus dearness allowance.”
6. A careful reading of the above provisions will show that simply because compensatory day of rest is allowed as per S. 20 of the Act, that will not disable the worker from seeking extra wages as per S. 26 of the Act.
7. The Court below has taken the right view holding that Ss. 20 and 26 are independent provisions. I do not see any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Court below. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.