http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1476 of 2003

PETITIONER: Nagar Council, Kapurthala

RESPONDENT: Davinder Singh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & V.S.SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT                    ORDER CIVIL  APPEAL NO.1476/2003 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 1620/2003, 1154/2003,4555/2007, 1149/2003, 1273/2003,  1152/2003,1477/2003,1839/2003,1478/2003,1919/2003, 1927/2003, 1920/2003,4111/2003,6096/2003,6099/2003,6100/2003, 6101/2003,6103/2003,6104/2003,6105/2003,6108/2003,6109/2003, 4438/2003, 4141/2003,4442/2003,4444/2003,4445/2003,4448/2003, 6589/2003,6596/2003,6598/2003                            Having heard learned counsel for the parties,as we are of the opinion  that for establishing their claim that they were entitled for  wages for working on  Saturdays and Sundays, the workmen must establish their legal right in the proceedings  under Section 33-(C)(2) of the Industrial  Disputes Act,1947 wherefor they had been  granted liberty to move the  appropriate Labour Court in this behalf by this Court in  Municipal Employees Union(Regd) Sirhind & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. -  (2000) 9 SCC 432, the impugned judgment would not come on the way of the  appellants herein in raising all contentions before the Labour Court if and when such  applications are filed.         In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us  to interfere with the impugned judgment at this stage.  We may notice that in Civil  Appeal                                           -1-

No. 5873 of 2006  disposed of on 15.12.2006, this Court observed as under:         " An application under Section 33-C(2) would be maintainable if the workmen  has a legal right in relation to his claim. They will have to establish the same. In such a  proceeding, undisputedly the appellants shall be entitled to raise all contentions before  the Industrial Court. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals.The appeals  are dismissed."         For the reasons stated hereinbefore, these appeals are disposed of. C. A. No.1155/2003,C.A.1370/2008@ SLP(C)Nos.21642/2003, C.A.1372/2008(@  SLP(C) No.21644/2003)                  Leave granted in special leave petitions.         Appellant which is a ’State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the  Constitution of India very fairly did not deny or dispute the legal rights of the  respondents-workmen. The High Court in its impugned judgment has held as under:

       "...The claim of the petitioner is hardly disputed in the written statement so as  to make them entitled to receive the said payment.

       In view of the circumstances afore-noticed, we dispose of this petition with a  direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders computing the amount due to  the petitioners in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and pay  the same within a period of three months from today."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

       In its written statement before the High Court, the appellant  while admitting  the legal right of the workmen has categorically stated that they were not in position to  discharge their financial liability owing to financial  constraints as octroi has been  withdrawn. The High Court in  

                               -2-

the  impugned judgment has noticed  that now octroi is again being levied and in that  view  of the matter issued the impugned directions.          Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant when confronted with  the said position does not dispute the liability of the appellant.         In that view of the  matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where  we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution  of India.

       The appeals are dismissed.