✦ High Court of India · 06 Aug 2024

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6535-2017 Kasturi Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case Details High Court of India · 06 Aug 2024

Court

High Court of India

Case No.

Cwp No. 06535 of 2017

Decided

06 Aug 2024

Bench

Clarification issued vide Memo. No.

Length

139,535 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure §33C Constitution of India Factories Act 1948 Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946 Motor Transport Workers Act 1961 Municipal Committees constituted and functioning under the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 Municipal functioning under Punjab Committees constituted and Municipal Act 1911 Overtime Allowance The overtime allowance shall be paid to the workshop and the operation staff in accordance with provisions of the Factories Act 1948 Provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1961 Punjab Water supply and Sewerage Board Act 1976 The daily and weekly hours of work in case of workshop staff shall be as prescribed in the factories Act 1948

Cited in this judgment

Judgment

8. Sr. No. Civil Writ Petition No. Application No. u/s 33C(2) of the ID Act Date of impugned order Name of the Industrial Tribunal Name of the applicant/employee or LRs Post held by the applicant/employee Department to which he/she belong PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 23

9. Service particulars, if any, provided in the pleadings

10. Period for which claim of extra wages was made

11. Amount claimed in the application BACKDROP OF THE CONTROVERSY

28. The State of Punjab introduced the policy of ‘five days working in a week for its employees’, w.e.f. 07.04.1980, and since then, they are enjoying the said benefit, having two days off in the weekend i.e. every Saturday and Sunday. However, grievance employees/workmen in these writ petitions, is that they were/are mainly posted in field area with only one weekly off, and denied the benefit of five days working in a week, contrary to other employees who used to the offices of the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, Municipal Councils, Nagar Councils and various other government departments. Further, they are made to work without paying any extra wages as compensation or alternative weekly off for working on Saturdays. In this manner, the said employees/workmen felt heartburning and discrimination. It is also alleged departments/competent authorities have not promulgated any uniform rules/bye-laws for such employees/workmen regarding working on Saturday in a week. ADVENT OF RAISING THE CLAIM OF EXTRA WAGES AS COMPENSATION IN LIEU OF WORKING ON SATURDAYS AND EARLIER ROUNDS OF LITIGATION

29. With the said grievance, at the first instance, some of the employees who were working as ‘Octori Clerks’ and ‘Peons’ in Municipal PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 24 Committees, initially approached this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) by filing writ petitions, for seeking extra wages as compensation in lieu of working on ‘Saturdays’.

30. After reference by a Division Bench, a 3 Judges Full Bench of this Court (K. Sreedharan, C.J., N.K. Sodhi and T.H.B. Chalapathi, JJ.), considered the question “as to whether the employees working on the octroi side in the Municipal Committees are entitled to National Festival and Gazetted holidays, Saturdays and Sundays off, Restricted holidays and lunch breaks etc. at par with the employees working on the office side or not”, in a bunch of 58 writ petitions. And, answered the same in the case of Hari Chand v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 5476 of 1992, decided on 29.05.1997, reported as PLR (1997) 117 P&H 451 : (1998) 1 SLR 299 : Law Finder Doc Id # 19788),

31. In Hari Chand’s case (supra), Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, had opined that the ‘Clerks’ and ‘Peons’ working in the offices, had not availed the benefit of compensatory leave/holidays in lieu of National holiday, Festival holiday and had also not availed the benefit of ‘Cycle’ and Uniform allowances, which were available to the Clerks and Peons working at the Octroi check-posts and barriers. Therefore, no question arises of any discrimination inter se these two categories of employees, though belonging to the same institution, having one common seniority with common pay scales and common cadre. This is how, the claims of the writ petitioners before the High Court were rejected. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 25 CASE OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD.) SIRHIND AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8434 OF 1997 WITH OTHER CONNECTED APPEALS, DECIDED ON 15.03.2000, REPORTED AS 432) [POPULARLY KNOWN AS ‘SIRHIND’S CASE’] 9 SCC (2000)

32. When the matter reached to the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others v. State of Punjab and Others’, (Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 with other connected appeals, decided on 15.03.2000, reported as (2000) 9 SCC 432) [hereafter referred as, ‘Sirhind’s case’], a question was framed that “Whether the Clerks and Peons working at Octroi check- posts and barriers run by the concerned respondent - Municipal Committees constituted and functioning under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short ‘the Act’) are entitled to be paid for each of the Saturday on which they worked at the octroi check-posts and barriers while their colleagues in the offices of the concerned Municipal Committees were permitted to enjoy those Saturdays as holidays”. While answering the aforesaid issue, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that since the benefit of such weekly holiday or day off was denied only to a limited category of the Octroi staff, who, due to exigencies of the service may, at a given point of time, be required to work only in the offices but by rotation in the Octroi check-posts or barriers for collection of revenue for the State, legal right had vested in these categories of employees by reason of interchangeability and rotation of postings from office to field or the other way round and, thus, to avoid PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 26 unfair discrimination arising out of posting orders, judgment was rendered in favour of aforementioned set of employees i.e. Clerks and Peons of Octroi check-posts and barriers.

33. Hon’ble the Apex Court also framed another moot question i.e. “……as to whether the employees belonging to Class-III and Class- IV service of the respondent-Municipal Committees who have a common employer and who have common seniority list and also common pay scales, when required to work either at the octroi check- post or in the offices of the Municipal Committees, as the case may be, depending upon the exigencies of service in committees, can have an equal right to enjoy Saturdays as holidays and whether the right available to their entire cadre as such to enjoy weekly holidays be denied only to a limited category of octroi staff, who, due to exigencies of service may, at a given point of time, be required to work not only in the offices but by rotation in the octroi check-posts or barriers.”

34. In the absence of any express provision in the Municipal bye- laws, requiring all the staff members to have six days working per week, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “……it would not be open to the respondent - Municipal Committees to deny the benefit of non-working Saturdays only to those staff members who, because of the exigencies of service, discharge their duties at octroi check-posts or barriers rather than in the offices.” Considering the situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court reached to the conclusion that there should not be any discrimination to the similarly situated employees. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 27

35. Further, it was observed that the fact, whether employees of field staff have worked on Saturdays or not, cannot be decided by the Apex Court in the present proceedings and, therefore, by treating the employees before it, to be similarly situated, held that they cannot be subjected to the discrimination, therefore, they were asked to establish their claims by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

36. Thus, while modifying the High Court order, employees working in the field area were held equal to the employees of office staff and were relegated for filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID

1947. For reference, relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), are reproduced here-below: “3. These appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The common question which arise for our consideration in these appeals runs as under: “Whether the clerks and peons working at octroi check-posts and barriers run by the concerned respondent-Municipal Committees constituted and functioning under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short ‘the Act’) are entitled to be paid for each of the Saturday on which they worked at the octroi check- posts and barriers while their colleagues in the offices the concerned Municipal Committees were permitted to enjoy those Saturdays as holidays.”

8. The appellants are employees of the respondent- Municipal Committees being peons belonging to Class-IV service and clerks belonging to Class-III service. It is also well established on the record that there is a common seniority of clerks and peons maintained by the concerned Municipal Committees and their pay scales are also the same. It is now found by the High Court and for which there PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 28 cannot be any controversy that the octroi staff could be rotated vis-a-vis the staff in the offices of concerned Municipal Committees. Therefore, the only grievance is that when the clerks and peons are required to work at the octroi check-posts and barriers, they are not given the benefit of closed Saturdays, which according to them, results in discrimination or denial of their right which accrues to all the staff members similarly situated and who have the common employer, namely, the concerned Municipal Committees.

9. So far as this grievance is concerned we may mention that our attention was invited to a Government notification dated 11th December, 1986 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Establishment Branch) which stated that the holidays enumerated in the Schedule below (as mentioned in the Notification) shall be observed as public holidays in public office under the Punjab Government during the calendar year 1987. This Schedule shows that 52 Saturdays, amongst others, were to be observed as holidays. We are told that similar such Government notifications were issued from time to time in different calendar years. Result was that Punjab Government servants working in public offices under the State enjoyed 52 Sundays and 52 Saturdays as mentioned in the aforesaid Notification, which was filed as a specimen one. Placing reliance on this notification and other identical notifications as were issued from time to time by the State authorities, according to the appellants, all the State Government servants enjoyed the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays, meaning thereby, they had to work only for five days in a week. If that was so, this benefit would automatically accrue to the Municipal employees working in the Municipal Committees. In support of this contention our attention was invited to Rule 3 of the Punjab Municipal General Rules, 1979 (for short ‘1979 Rules’) which reads as under: “3. General Principles [Sections 236 and 240(1)], - Every committee shall observe such general principles of administration as are followed in the departments of the State Government.”

14. In our view, in the facts of the present case and in the light of the order which we propose to pass in the present proceedings it is strictly not necessary to examine this PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 29 question finally. We may assume for the present discussion that Rule 3 of general rules may not cover this question. But even on this assumption the moot question remains as to whether the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service of the respondent-Municipal Committees who have common employer and who have common seniority list and also common pay scales, when required to work either at the octroi check-post or in the offices of the Municipal Committees, as the case may be, depending upon the exigencies of service in committees, can have an equal right to enjoy Saturdays as holidays and whether the right available to their entire cadre as such to enjoy such weekly holidays be denied only to a limited category of octroi staff, who, due to exigencies of service may, at a given point of time, be required to work not only in the offices but by rotation in the octroi check-posts or barriers.

15. So far as this question is concerned unless there is any express provision in the Municipal Bye-laws requiring all the staff members to have six days’ working-per week, in our view, it would not be open to the respondent-Municipal Committees to deny the benefit of non-working Saturdays only to those staff members who have because of the exigencies of service to discharge their duties at octroi check-posts or barriers rather than in the offices. But that would require a further question as to whether, at the relevant time at which the concerned employees like the appellants have actually worked on Saturdays, colleagues in the offices had enjoyed such holidays and further whether the bye-laws of the concerned Municipal Committees required the employees, by way of their service conditions, to discharge their duties for six days in a week and, therefore, it was open to the Municipal authorities, looking to the exigencies and pressure of work, to give some additional concession to only those office staff members who would have been permitted not to come for work on any Saturdays. Therefore, all that we can lay down in the present proceedings is to the effect that if the appellants, at the relevant time at which they claim to have earned the right to enjoy holidays falling on Saturdays were made to work while their colleagues similarly situated like them, working in the offices of the Municipal Committees, were given the benefit of such holidays and when there were no bye-laws requiring the employees to work for 6 days in a week, then they would be entitled to be given monetary compensation for the working Saturdays by grant of extra wages for each of the working Saturday on which they are shown to have is charged their duties. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 30

16. These questions cannot be resolved in the present proceedings and for that the appellants, if so advised, will have to be relegated to the remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein all these questions of fact can be thrashed out.

17. But this claim of the appellants will be subject to the further rider that at the relevant time the Government employees working under the different departments of the Punjab State had got the benefit of 52 closed Saturdays in a given year as declared by the State Government in exercise of its administrative powers. It is not in dispute between the parties that if in a given calendar year the Punjab State employees had not enjoyed benefit of 52 closed Saturdays then the appellants would not be entitled to make any such claim.

18. Under these circumstances, the relief which is granted to all these appellant-employees by modification of the High Court’s order will be as under :- filing appellants, appropriate The applications under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may, on proper computation, be entitled to get extra wages for each of the Saturdays of which they might have worked while their colleagues in the offices of the Municipal Committees had enjoyed benefit of Saturdays provided- the 52 Saturdays in a given calendar year were enjoyed by the employees of the State Government. Even if the State Government employees had enjoyed the said benefit during the relevant calendar year but if the Municipal Committees had promulgated, at the relevant time, any bye- law under which the working conditions of the staff members were uniformly prescribed to be six days in a week, then, the question of granting any monetary benefit to the appellants would not survive. On the other hand if there was no such bye-law at the relevant time, then the appellants would be entitled to claim wages for the Saturdays on which they have actually worked when their colleagues in the offices had not worked and had enjoyed benefit of closed Saturdays.

2. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 31

19. If all these conditions are satisfied, then appropriate relief under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act can be granted to the appellants in appropriate proceedings. It is made clear that in the writ petitions which were 20. filed in the High Court either at the end of 1991 or in the beginning 1992 the writ petitioners cannot get any more monetary benefit, save and except, for the period of three years immediately preceding the filing of such petitions and thereafter continuously up-to-date, subject to aforesaid conditions being satisfied by them. In the petitions under Section 33C(2) the appellants, therefore, have to restrict their claims to the aforesaid extent.

21. It is also made clear that if any of the appellant- employees has retired in the meantime then the benefit which may be required to be computed would obviously be available to him or her till the date of retirement. All these questions are kept open for consideration of appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings.

22. It is also directed that if such applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are moved by the appellants, the same may be disposed of, after hearing the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such applications.”

37. Thus, Hon’ble the Apex Court specifically directed the employees/workmen in Sirhind’s case (supra), who were employees of the Octroi Department of the Municipal Councils/Municipal Corporations, to move applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for proper computation of the extra wages for each of the Saturday on which they might have worked while their colleagues in the offices of the Municipal Committee have enjoyed the benefit of taking rest on total 52 Saturdays in one calendar year.

38. From the reading of the judgment in Sirhind’s case (supra), it can also be understood that there was no specific provision in the Municipal bye-laws regarding the six days working schedule. However, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 32 there being the notification dated 11.12.1986, issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Establishment Branch), total 52 Saturdays of the Calendar year 1987, were to be observed as holidays. Still, Hon’ble Apex Court considered and held that the employees posted in the offices and in the field area of octroi check-posts are similarly situated, as per their service conditions.

39. From the law laid down in Sirhind’s case (supra), it is hard to believe that a uniform declaration, i.e. ‘to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act’, has been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in favour of all the employees of the State of Punjab, who are working in different Departments, and that the right to claim extra wages in lieu of working on Saturdays, exists in their favour. SPATE OF WRIT PETITIONS AFTER JUDGMENT PASSED IN SIRHIND’S CASE AND THEIR FATE

40. A spate of writ petitions were filed before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), seeking the relief in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (Supra). And, even in some of the cases, the employees/workmen directly instituted applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for determination of their claims, before the concerned Industrial Tribunals. Such writ petitions, came to be listed before Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, because as per the High Court Rules and Orders which were prevailing at that point of time, all the writ petitions were listed before a Division Bench, until and unless they reach the stage of admission. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 33

41. A Division Bench of this Court, while deciding two writ petitions, titled as Resham Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 19852 of 2002, decided on 13.12.2002), and Pritam Bhagat and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 19853 of 2002, decided on 13.10.2002), observed that by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), petitioners therein (in CWP No. 19852 of 2002) are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, as their right to receive monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest Court of the land. In fact, it is the order dated 13.12.2002, passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), which gave an idea to the employees throughout the State of Punjab and Haryana to assume their pre-existing right for seeking extra wages/monetary claim for having worked on Saturdays/holidays.

42. It would be apt to understand the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), dated

13.12.2002, passed in Resham Singh’s case (supra), which fell as a reason of raising claim for extra wages in lieu of duty performed on Saturdays, by way of filing application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. For reference, order dated 13.12.2002, passed in Resham Singh’s case (supra), is reproduced herebelow: “Present: Shri R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. SWATANTER KUMAR, J. This order of ours shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 19852 of 2002 and Civil Writ Petition No.19853 of 2002 as the similar questions of fact and law are involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 19852 of 2002. In this petition under PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 34 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that this court should issue a direction to the respondents to extend to the petitioners benefits in terms of law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No.8434 of 1997 decided on 15.3.2002, copy of the judgment being annexed to this writ petition as Annexure P-3. While disposing of a number of petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued various directions and modified the order of the High Court. Amongst others there were two direction issued are:

1. That the employees, workman petitioners before the Supreme Court would be entitled to be given monetary benefit for working on Saturday by granting them extra wages for each of the Saturday of which they have shown to be discharged their duties.

2. Secondly, the petitioner should invoke proper proceedings under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purpose of proper computation in respect of the monetary benefit arising therefrom. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has given finality to the dispute between the parties. The State Government is expected to obey and follow the law laid down by the highest court of the land and grant benefits to its employees, who were similarly situated in accordance with law. It will not be appropriate for the government to compel its employees to seek Redressal of their grievances through process of the court. In this regard, detailed directions are issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satbir Singh & another V. The State of Haryana & Ors Civil Writ Petition No.4382 of 2002 decided on 21.3.2002. We do hope that the government would at its own at least now and upon consideration of the cases of the petitioners, pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as expeditiously as possible. In any case, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as their right to receive monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest court of the and. If the petitioners have performed their duties on Saturdays and Sundays then in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 35 their claim can hardly be refuted. In other words, it appear to us that right of the petitioners stands settled and it is only consequential benefits in terms of money that are being denied by the respondents to the petitioners. Appropriate remedy in terms of the above judgment is under the Industrial Disputes Act, but we do hope that respondents would not compel the petitioners to take to such procedural law. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- Swatanter Kumar Judge Sd/- Viney Mittal Judge December 13, 2002”

43. Since, the Hon’ble Division Bench granted liberty to file applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, employees/workmen approached the concerned Industrial Tribunals with such applications. And after decision of the applications by respective Industrial Tribunals, present set of writ petitions were filed before this Court, by the affected parties, as has already been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment.

44. It would also be significant to mention that though not directly emerging out of entitlement of claiming extra wages as a right of an employee, and then to claim the same under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, yet the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has discussed the scope of the area, where the right of grant of extra benefit can be enforced on the issue of discrimination within the similarly situated set of employees, i.e. among equals, as has been held in Sirhind’s case (supra). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 36

45. In another case, titled as Balbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 11990 of 2004, decided on 16.12.2005), the employees who were working on the posts of Drivers, Cleaners, Mate, and Beldar etc. in the Public Works Department (B&R), Punjab, had claimed the entitlement of extra wages in lieu of duty performed on all Saturdays and other gazetted holidays, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). However, their claim was rejected by the Executive Engineer/Department itself vide order dated 11.07.2003, which was assailed before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh’s case (supra). Hon’ble Division Bench in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) found that no member of the cadre belonging to the petitioners therein, was ever granted the benefit of holidays on Saturdays or Sundays and comparison was sought to be made between the non-technical staff, which was devoted to the office work and the petitioners, who were deputed on duty in the field. Hon’ble Division Bench also came to the conclusion that judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) has no application to the facts of said case (Balbir Singh’s case), as no so called discrimination was established which was sought to be projected. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioners in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) was rejected and writ petition was dismissed.

46. On 06.12.2018 itself, when order was passed in LPA No. 130 of 2018 and other connected appeals (supra), another appeal titled as ‘Davinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others’ (LPA No. 482 of 2018, decided on 06.12.2018), pertaining to an employee of the State of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 37 Haryana, also came up for consideration before the same Hon’ble Letters Patent Bench, wherein challenge was made to the judgment and order dated 24.01.2018, passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition wherein relief was sought to command the State-respondent to not to compel the petitioner (appellant in the LPA) to attend his duties on Saturdays and other holidays notified as public holidays or in alternative to direct the State-respondent to pay extra wages to the petitioner for attending his duties on Saturdays and other notified public holidays. After consideration, the Hon’ble Letters Patent Bench/ Division Bench formed an opinion in the said appeal that the issues raised in the case are disputed questions of fact which require adjudication on the basis of evidence and can be better gone into by a fact finding authority. Thus, can be more effectively considered by Labour Court in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. While reaching to the said conclusion, Hon’ble LPA Bench of this Court placed reliance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). Accordingly, while disposing of the said appeal, relegated the appellant/petitioner therein to file appropriate application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act for adjudication of the issue. While doing so, certain conditions were also imposed to be fulfilled by both the sides. For ready reference, judgment and order dated 06.12.2018, passed in the case of Davinder Singh (supra) is reproduced as under:- “KRISHNA MURARI, C.J. (ORAL) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is being disposed of finally. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 38 This intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking a relief to command the State-respondent not to compel the petitioner (appellant herein) to attend his duties on Saturdays and other holidays notified as public holidays or in alternative to direct the State-respondent to pay extra wages to the petitioner for attending his duties on Saturdays and other notified public holidays.

2. Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner is working in the office of the Transport Department of the State of Haryana. Initially he was appointed as a Storeman on 27.11.1979. Subsequently, he was promoted to the posts of Assistant Store Keeper and Store Keeper in the years 1993 and 1997 respectively and thereafter he was promoted as Chief Store Keeper on 04.11.2011. Later on, he was promoted the post of Store Purchase Officer on 30.03.2017. Various posts held by the petitioner in the Department fall in the category of ministerial staff. Placing reliance on the notification issued by the State of Haryana declaring all Saturdays and Sundays to have been notified as holidays, it was alleged that he is being asked to work and attend his duties on Saturday which has been declared as public holiday by the State of Haryana.

3. In reply to the legal notice issued by the appellant-petitioner, the fact has been admitted that he holds the post which falls in the category of ministerial staff and that Saturday has been declared to be a public holiday. However, since his duties are directly connected to public service and as such like other staff holding ministerial posts whose duties are linked to public service, he is also required to attend his duties on Saturdays.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge without considering the aforesaid facts and the ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others Vs State of Punjab and others, 2000(9) SCC 432 wrongly and illegally dismissed the writ petition.

5. Learned State counsel vehemently contends that since the appellant is not a workman, as he belongs to the cadre of ministerial staff and governed by Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana, he would not be entitled to wages for having worked on a public holiday. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 39

6. learned counsel for the parties. We have considered the arguments advanced by In our considered opinion, all these are disputed 7. questions of fact which require adjudication on the basis of evidence and can be better gone into by a fact finding authority. Even the issue as to whether the appellant is a workman or not can also be considered and adjudicated upon by a fact finding authority.

8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the issue can be more effectively considered by Labour Court in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). In identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others (supra) relegated the petitioners therein to avail the remedy of Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by making the following directions:- Appellant-petitioner may (i) file appropriate application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and on adjudication of the issue that he is covered under the definition of workman and if found entitled to extra wages for each of the Saturdays he might have worked while his other colleagues belonging to ministerial staff and holding technical and non-technical posts have enjoyed Saturdays as holiday, then he will be entitled to the same. (ii) If it is shown by the State-respondent that at the relevant time any instructions were issued under which the working condition of the appellant-petitioner and other similarly staff were unilaterally prescribed to be six days in a week then the question of granting monetary benefit to the appellant-petitioner would not survive. situated ministerial On fulfillment of all the conditions appropriate (iii) relief under section 33-C(2) of the Act may be granted to the appellant-petitioner but the same has to be confined to three years immediately after preceding the filing of the instant petition and thereafter continuously upto date. Thus, the application is to be filed under section 33-C(2) of the Act and the appellant-petitioner has to restrict his claim accordingly. (iv) If the appellant-petitioner makes any such application under section 33-C(2) of the Act within a period of three months from today, then the same be disposed of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 40 expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of such application.

9. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of to the extent directed above and the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to that extent. (KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE

06.12.2018”

47. Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) while dismissing the case titled as Harmesh Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 20836 of 2014, decided on 07.10.2014, reported as 2015 (2) SCT 157), held as under:- “9. I do not think that the writ jurisdiction ought to be invoked in a case of this kind which authority is meant to come in aid of cases of hostile and invidious discrimination such as amongst those who were equally placed in the same nursery or string of nurseries governed by one department of the Government and are being treated unequally and unfairly, then court intervention is possible and must follow. The special type of work performed in farms, gardens and nurseries by themselves is the singular object and the intelligible differentia dividing the two groups of employees separating workers in nurseries from those who perform in Government offices. The Notification dated duties 07.04.1980 issued by the Government of Punjab does not address itself to the petitioners and therefore their reliance on it is misplaced. It does not apply to employees working in farms, gardens and nurseries insofar as working hours are concerned, for them to claim parity with Government offices where people work from 9:00 AM to 5:00PM with half an hour break. The needs are disparate. The requirements are widely different. This is simply because the notification speaks of ’offices’. A farm or nursery is not an office stricto sensu where blue-collar staff is found working. Though a part of the farm or a nursery may have an adjunct office but the part would be severable from the main activity where the petitioners may be found occasionally but do not work.” PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 41

48. While deciding case titled as Nagar Council, Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others (LPA No. 1178 of 2015, decided on

26.04.2016, reported as 2016 (3) SCT 481 : 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 10136), Hon’ble Letters Patent Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) observed as under:- It is, thus, evident that the view taken by the “ Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. We have failed to discover the so called discrimination, which is sought to be projected in the present case. The petitioners belong to the field staff and cannot seek parity with the office staff and, therefore, they cannot seek equal treatment with the unequal. Therefore, we do not find any petitioners. For the reasons stated above this petition fails and the same is dismissed. the claim made by justification to accept If the aforesaid principles of law are applied in the case of the respondent-workmen, the only conclusion which can be reached is that the they are not entitled to the relief prayed for, for the reason that none of the employees in the cadre of the respondent-workmen are working in the office enjoying Saturday as a holiday. As the respondent- workmen are not employees working in the office, rather they are working as Beldar, Fitter and Mali in the field, hence, the judgment in Municipal Employees Union (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The respondent workmen cannot equate themselves with the staff working in the office. They belong to the field staff, hence, the plea of discrimination is totally misconceived. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside."

49. In the case of Nathu Ram and others v. Bhakra Beas Management Board (CWP No.2060 of 2003, decided on 24.02.2003), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) while deciding a similar controversy and similar prayer noticed that although the petitioners before it rendered duties for six working days in PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 42 every week, but there was no parity in controversy where the petitioners in whose case the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in Sirhind case. The Hon’ble Division Bench also found that the petitioners therein were attached as Field Officers in the Field Offices, worked for six days in a week and were allowed field holidays as sanctioned on year to year basis. Thus, their claim for extra wages for Saturdays was turned down.

50. In the case of Om Parkash Aerry and others v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 9934 of 2004, decided on 20.07.2004, reported as 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1461 : (2004) 5 SLR 61 (DB) : 2004 (4) SCT 55), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) dealt with the issue of extra wages for working on Saturdays. In the said case, the petitioners who were employees of the Bakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB) were aggrieved by a notification dated 27.05.1983, vide which it was decided that all employees whether regular or work-charge working in the field offices would work for six days in a week. A claim for extra work done after office hours and on holidays was also made. Admittedly, employees in field establishments received compensation by way of additional casual leaves besides normal casual leaves and field holidays. They were even granted fixed travelling allowances for 12 full daily allowances in a month. Hon’ble Division Bench, after having considered the claim made by the petitioners in Om Parkash Aerry’s case (supra) on its merits, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 43 while distinguishing the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) dismissed the said petition.

51. In Sat Pal Puri v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Civil Appeal No. 2235 of 2008, decided on 21.02.2008, reported as (2008) 4 SCC 216 : Law Finder Doc Id # 145897), their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court again dealt with the issue of extra wages for working on Saturdays and holidays. In this case and various other appeals connected therewith, Division Bench judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), passed in the case of Sat Pal Puri and others v. State of Punjab and another (RA No. 64 of 2003 in CWP No. 19838 of 2002, decided on 11.03.2003), was under challenge.

52. In Sat Pal Puri’s case (supra), the employees/appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court, initially filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming parity in the matter of remuneration for working on Saturdays and Sundays in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), wherein it was opined that in the absence of any express provision to the contrary in Municipal bye-laws, the octroi staff could not be denied the benefit of non-working Saturdays and, thus, when required to work on such Saturdays, they could be granted extra wages in lieu thereof, and that factual foundation for such claim was required to be established. It was also opined in Sirhind’s case (supra) that in the event if the employees had filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, the same may be entertained.

53. The Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in some cases even without notice, allowed the writ petitions filed PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 44 by the employees, opining that the State of Punjab cannot deny the said benefit to the employees of other departments.

54. Thereupon, the Punjab State Electricity Board filed an application for review of the said judgment and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2003, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) is not applicable in the case of Sat Pal Puri (supra). Thus, the matter reached the Hon’ble Apex Court.

55. In Sat Pal Puri’s case (supra), their Lordships’ considered the question as to whether the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of Sat Pal Puri’s case as well.

56. In its judgment passed in Sat Pal Puri’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court found that – • The Punjab State Electricity Board was constituted and terms of Sections 5 and 12 of incorporated Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. • Under Section 79(c) of the 1948 Act, the PSEB, subject to compliance of the statutory requirements contained therein, is entitled to frame its own regulations. • It is permissible for the Board to frame different regulations for different categories of employees. • It is a department of the State of Punjab. • The employees/appellants before the Apex Court belong to the technical category, Service Grade III, requiring to perform field duties. • Supply of electricity is a public utility function of the Board. • The Board therefore is required to have technical staff at their disposal, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 45 • Several regulations have been framed by the Board and several agreements have also been entered into by and between the Union and the Board. • Some of the employees are also governed by the provisions of the 1948 Act. • There are three categories of workmen, which are governed by different terms and conditions of service in regard to enjoyment of holidays; viz. (a)Technical Staff (Regular) Work charged covered under the Factories Act 1948. (b) Regular Technical Field Staff not covered under the Factories Act. (c) Work charged employees not covered under the Factories Act. • Local outdoor duty allowance (LODA) to different categories of Technical/Field staff employees working on different duties e.g. those working in the operations and R.E. Divisions, construction organizations is paid. • The technical field staff would be entitled to the holidays in a calendar year, as stipulated in the circular letter dated 5.4.1972, namely i) Saturdays on alternate months-not exceeding five. ii) Half the number of Gazetted Holidays notified by the Board for the other staff. • The Punjab State Electricity Board had issued another circular letter dated 27.10.1986 in the following terms: (i) all the officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board shall function from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. from Monday to Friday with lunch break from 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. i.e. the same office timings of the Government of Punjab. (ii) The offices of the Electricity Board shall remain closed on all the Saturdays and Sundays. (iii) The same holidays shall be observed in the offices of the Punjab State Electricity Board as are being observed in the office of the Punjab Government. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 46

57. Having gone through the contents of the aforementioned circular dated 27.10.1986, Hon’ble Apex Court was clear in its mind that the same would be applicable only in respect of the officers and employees working in the office of the Electricity Board and not the Field Staff. The circular letter dated 5.4.1972 has not been repealed by circular letter dated 27.10.1986.

58. Accordingly, in para Nos. 11 to 13 of the judgment in Sat Pal Puri’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- In view of the fact that the technical staff of the “11. Board are governed by framed under regulations Section 79(c) of the 1948 Act the appellants herein do not have any existing legal right so as to enable them to file an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12. We have noticed hereinabove that even in Municipal Employees Union’s case (supra), this Court opined that the octroi staff could be entitled to the said benefit of non-working Saturdays and when required to work on such Saturdays, were entitled to extra wages in lieu thereof, if they are not governed by any of the rule. In the case the appellants being governed by statutory rules, they would not be entitled file applications under Section 33C(2) of the 1947 Act.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.” EVOLUTION OF THE THEORY OF FIVE-DAY WORK WEEK

59. Before answering the question of law involved in these writ petitions, it is apposite to understand the origin and evolution of ‘five- days work in a week’. With the help and assistance of the counsel appearing before this Court and some research work being done to know, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 47 as to how the theory of five days working week was evolved, it come to fore as under:- Evolution of five-day workweek

60. The evolution of the five-day workweek, with Saturday and Sunday off, is a culmination of historical, economic, and social developments. Initially, work schedules were heavily influenced by agricultural cycles, often requiring labour seven days a week to tend to crop and livestock. However, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, there was a significant shift towards factory and urban work, prompting changes in Labour practices.

61. Labour movements gained momentum as workers sought better conditions and shorter hours. One pivotal moment was Henry Ford’s implementation of a 40-hour workweek in 1926 for his automotive factories, motivated by both productivity concerns and pressure from Labour unions. This decision set a precedent that spread to other industries, gradually establishing the Monday-to-Friday workweek. Legislation played a crucial role in codifying these changes. The Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 in the United States standardized the 40-hour workweek and introduced regulations for overtime pay. This legislation helped solidify the concept of the weekend as a time for rest and leisure, with Saturday and Sunday becoming universally recognized days off for many workers.

62. Over time, societal attitudes shifted towards prioritizing work-life balance, further reinforcing the acceptance of the five-day workweek. Additionally, globalisation and technological advancements PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 48 have reshaped work practices, with some industries adopting more flexible schedules to accommodate global operations.

63. In summary, the evolution of the five-day workweek with Saturday and Sunday off is a multifaceted process shaped by historical, economic, legislative, and cultural factors. It represents a balance between the demands of productivity and the need for leisure time, with ongoing efforts to adapt to changing societal expectations and work dynamics. Indian Context

64. In the Indian context, the origination of the five-day workweek and the subsequent establishment of the six-day workweek can be traced back to various historical, economic, and regulatory factors. Initially, labour laws such as the Factories Act, 1948, which stipulated a maximum of 48 hours of work per week with a limit of 9 hours per day for adult workers, laid the groundwork for regulating working hours in factories.

65. The concept of the five-day workweek began to gain traction as industrialization progressed and labour movements advocated for better working conditions. However, the specific adoption of a five-day workweek with Saturday and Sunday off was influenced by both global trends and local practices.

66. One significant milestone this evolution was implementation of a five- day workweek by certain multinational corporations and large Indian companies, aligning with international standards and promoting employee well-being. This adoption was also facilitated by amendments to labour laws and regulations that allowed for PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 49 flexibility in scheduling while ensuring compliance with prescribed limits on working hours.

67. On the other hand, the six-day workweek remained prevalent in many sectors, especially those not covered under specific regulations mandating a five-day workweek. Industries such as retail, hospitality, and small-scale enterprises often operated on a six-day schedule, reflecting variations in labour practices across different sectors and regions in India. RELEVANT CONDITIONS OF SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVISIONS SATUTORY RE:

68. It is important to mention that this Court has faced a great difficulty to find out the rules/regulations/bye-laws governing the conditions of services of various sets of employees, because, in most of the cases, neither the same have been expressly pleaded or produced on record, before the Industrial Tribunals while filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, nor before this Court at the time of filing of writ petitions by respective parties. Barring few of learned counsel who have argued in the matter, in most of cases, no reference of such statutory provisions governing the conditions of services, was made at the time of addressing of respective arguments. Accordingly, only rules/regulations/Bye-laws are being referred in the judgment, which came to the notice of this Court while scrutiny of writ petitions or referred during course of arguments by learned counsel. Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I

69. After scrutiny of each and every file of 511 writ petitions, this Court found that the employees whose rights are involved are/were PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 50 working in different capacities, different institutions/departments and governed by different set of Acts, Rules and Bye-laws. However, one fact is crystal clear that for the present, the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (hereafter referred to as, ‘the Punjab CSR’) would act as a ‘magna carta’, inasmuch as, the provisions contained therein are applied in almost all the services in the State of Punjab, irrespective of the fact that a different set of rules/regulations/bye-laws are also framed regulating the conditions of service in a particular department.

70. Having gone through the different sets of rules, regulations and bye-laws, which are applicable to the conditions of service of the employees in these writ petitions, this Court found that though not in all, but in most of such statutory provisions, it is provided that the provisions of the Punjab CSR are applicable in respect of the matters, not specifically provided in a particular set of rules.

71. For the sake of convenience, relevant provisions of the Punjab CSR, are reproduced hereunder: Rule 2.13 of the Punjab CSR “2.13. Compensatory allowance means an allowance granted to meet personal expenditure necessitated by the special circumstances in which duty is performed. It includes traveling allowance, dearness allowance but does not include a sumptuary allowance nor the grant of a free passage by sea to or from any place outside India. Note.- See the explanation and note 1 under rule 2.52.” Rule 2.29 of the Punjab CSR “2.29. Holiday means:- (a) a holiday prescribed or notified by or under section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 51 (b) in relation to any particular office a day on which such office is ordered, by notification in the Gazette or otherwise transaction of Government business without reserve or qualification. to be closed Note.- This term does not include “local holiday” which may be granted at the discretion of Head of Offices: provided there are no arrears of work, nor such merely discretionary holidays as the last Saturday of each month.” Rule 2.30 of the Punjab CSR “2.30. Honorarium means a recurring or non-recurring payment granted to a Government employee from the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of a State (including the Punjab State) or the Consolidated Fund of a Union Territory as remuneration for special work of an occasional or intermittent character. Note 1.- No honorarium should be paid in respect of any work which can fairly be regarded as part of the legitimate duties of the Government employees concerned. Note 2.- It is one of the liabilities of Government employees to have to work outside office hours in exceptional times and circumstances. No honoraria should ordinarily be given on this account, but continuous working out of office hours may justify a claim to honoraria or to special pay. Note 3.- No honoraria should be paid to Government employees for attending meetings of boards and committees financed wholly or partly from Government revenues. Note 4.- No honorarium should be granted to Group “A” and Group “B” officers engaged on work in connection with the setting up of companies, corporations, etc. which forms a part of their normal duties even if they work beyond office hours.” Rule 2.44 of the Punjab CSR “2.44. “pay” means – (a) the basic pay, that is the amount drawn monthly by a Government employee in the scale of pay of the post held by him, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre; and PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 52 (b) includes any other employments which may specifically be classed as part of pay by the competent authority.” Rule 2.52 of the Punjab CSR “2.52. Special pay means an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of Government employees, granted in consideration of:- (a) the specially arduous nature of duties; (b) a specific addition to the work or responsibility and includes non-practising allowance granted to doctors in lieu of private practice. The circumstances which justify the grant Explanation.- to a Government employee of special pay are entirely different in character from those which justify the grant of a compensatory allowance, a difference emphasized in the definition of those terms embodied in rules 2.13 and 2.52. These definitions should be strictly construed and an exact compliance required with the conditions stated in them as antecedent to the grant of either special pay or compensatory allowance. There is no necessary inter-dependence between special pay and compensatory allowance. It is not the intention of the rules either that where the cost of living would justify the grant to a Government employee of a compensatory allowance, he should be rendered ineligible for such allowance, because he has already been granted special pay in recognition of the duties and responsibilities of his post, or that if the attachment of special pay to a post is justified under the terms of the rules, it should be subject to reduction because for reasons essentially different, a compensatory allowance as defined subsequently granted. in rule 2.13 Note 1.- The reasons for the grant of a special pay and compensatory allowance should be recorded sanctioning order so that their classification may be duly watched in audit. In cases in which an official record in an open letter is considered undesirable, it should be possible to communicate the reason confidentially to the Accountant- General. Note 2.- Omitted. A provision in the contract of a Government Note 3.- employee appointed to a particular post that he should “also PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 53 do all things that may be required of him” does not to perform onerous contemplate his being required additional duties in another post without remuneration.” Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR “3.10. Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government employee is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim or additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from Union or State revenues, or from the revenues of a local fund.”

72. Rule 2.13 of the Punjab CSR defines the meaning of ‘compensatory allowance’; Rule 2.29 explains the meaning of ‘holiday’; Rule 2.30 defines the meaning of ‘Honorarium’; Rule 2.44 defines meaning of ‘pay’; and Rule 2.52 explains the meaning of ‘special pay’. These statutory provisions of the Punjab CSR also entail the conditions and circumstances under which these can be granted to the employees, for example – (i) ‘Compensatory allowance’ is granted to meet personal expenditure necessitated by the special circumstances in which duty is performed. (ii) ‘Honorarium’ is granted as a remuneration for ‘special work’ of an occasional or intermittent character. However, as per Note 1 below Rule 2.30, no honorarium should be paid in respect of any work which can fairly be regarded as part of the legitimate duties of the Government employees concerned. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 54 (iii) ‘Pay’ is the amount drawn monthly by a Government employee in the scale of pay of the post held by him, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre, and also includes any other emoluments which may specifically be classed as part of pay by the competent authority. (iv) ‘Special pay’ is an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of Government employees, which is granted in consideration of the ‘specially arduous nature of duties’ or for a specific addition to the work or responsibility.

73. In the Punjab CSR, neither there is any definition defining the meaning of words ‘extra wages’ nor there exists any specific rule for grant or payment of such ‘extra wages’ to the employees. As per the express provisions of the Punjab CSR, for any extra ordinary duty or special work done by the employees, the competent authority can grant or extend the benefit of compensatory allowance, honorarium and special pay, in addition to their ‘pay’.

74. It is nobody’s case in the present set of writ petitions that the employees have ever agitated their claim for grant of aforementioned monetary benefits, i.e. in the nature of compensatory allowance or honorarium or special pay in lieu of the duty performed by them on Saturdays/holidays. Rather, their sole claim is for payment of ‘extra wages’ for working on Saturdays, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 55

75. As per definition of the word ‘holiday’, under Rule 2.29 of the Punjab CSR, holiday is a day on which a particular office is ordered to be closed for the transaction of Government business without reserve or qualification, by notifying the same in the Gazette.

76. Lastly comes Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, which in essence, establishes that unless specifically stipulated otherwise, the entirety of government employees’ time, is under the control of the Government that employ them. This rule grants the Government authority to assign tasks to employees as deemed necessary by the appropriate authority, without the need for additional compensation. Whether the services required of the employee are typically remunerated from Union or State revenues, or from the revenues of a local fund, the Government retains the discretion to utilize the employees time as it deems fit within the scope of their duties. The Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994

77. The Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (hereafter referred as, ‘the General and Common Rules’) have been framed by the State of Punjab under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the recruitment and general and common conditions of service of persons appointed to Group ‘A’, Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ services in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab.

78. Under Rule 2(g) & 2(h) of the General and Common Rules, the meaning of ‘Service’ and ‘Service Rules’ has been defined, as under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 56 “2(g) “Service” means and Group ‘A’ Service, Group ‘B’ Service and Group connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab as per scales given in the Appendix; ‘C’ Service constituted 2(h) “Service Rules” means the service rules made under article 309 of the Constitution of India regulating the recruitment and conditions of service other than the general and common conditions of services of persons appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab;”

79. For the present context, Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the General and Common Rules are relevant, and the same are reproduced as under:- “8. Seniority- The se of persons seniority appointed to posts in each cadre of a Service shall be determined by the length of continuous service on such post in that cadre of the Service. Provided that in the case of persons recruited by direct appointment who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a maximum of four months from the date of order of appointment Commission or the Board, as the case may be, shall not be disturbed. the order of merit determined by Provided further that in case a person is permitted to join the post after the expiry of the said period of four months in consultation with the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the post: Provided further that in the case of two or more persons appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- a) b) c) a person appointed by direct appointment shall be senior to a person appointed otherwise: a person appointed by promotion shall be senior to a person appointed by transfer; in the case of persons appointed by promotion or transfer, the seniority shall be determined PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 57 d) according to the seniority of such persons in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and in the case of persons appointed by transfer from different cadres their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a person who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment; and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then by their length of service in these appointments and if the length of service is also the same an older person shall be senior to a younger person; Provided further that in the case of persons recruited by direct appointment in the same cadre obtaining equal marks during same selection process, there inter-se-seniority shall be determined on the basis of their age. That is, an older person shall be senior to the younger person. Note: Seniority of persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ad hoc basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of such regular appointment.

9. Liability of members of Service to transfer. A member of a Service may be transferred to any post whether included in any other service or not, on the same terms and conditions as are specified in rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, part-I.

10. Liability to serve. A member of a service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab, on being ordered so to do by the appointing authority.

11. Leave, Pension and other matters. respect of pay, leave, pension and all other matters not expressly provided for in these rules, a member of a Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may hereafter be adopted or made by the competent authority.” In PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 58

80. As per Rule 8 of the General and Common Rules, the inter se seniority of the members of the Service to which these rules apply, has to be determined cadre-wise in the manner as provided in the said rule. Therefore, there can’t be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of a Service.

81. Under Rule 9 of the General and Common Rules, it is provided that a member of a Service may be transferred to any post, whether included in any other service or not, on the same terms and conditions as are specified in Rule 3.17 of the Punjab CSR.

82. Rule 10 of the General and Common Rules further contemplates that a member of a service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab, on being ordered to do so, by the appointing authority. Statutory Provisions re: conditions of Services of the employees of Municipalities

83. Provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for brevity, ‘the 1911 Act’), inter alia prescribe constitution of Municipalities such as Municipal or Nagar Councils, Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Committees and Municipal Corporations; conduct of their business; and constitution of Municipal Services. As per Section 38(1) of the 1911 Act, the following Municipal Services can be constituted by the State Government:- (i) Punjab Service of Municipal Executive Officers; (ii) Punjab Service of Municipal Engineers and Sectional Officers; (iii) Punjab Service of Municipal Health Officers; PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 59 (iv) Punjab Service of Municipal Secretaries; (v) Punjab Service of Municipal Accountants; and (vi) Such other Municipal Services as the State Government may decide.

84. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the 1911 Act also empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of the members of the Municipal Services referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the 1911 Act, as well as to make classification of such Services. Sub-section (3) of Section 38 further provides that the State Government may transfer any member of a Municipal Service from a post in one committee to a post carrying the same scale of pay in another committee.

85. Accordingly, State of Punjab enacted various rules for governing the condition of services of different set of Municipal Services. However, considering the fact that cases of a particular set of municipal employees are before this Court for consideration, only the following set of rules are being discussed. (i) The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986. (ii) The Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977. (iii) The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984. (iv) The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 60 The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986

86. The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986, are applicable to the posts specified in Appendix “A’ attached therewith, namely, Daftri, Light Patroller, Dai, Head Mali, Mate, Chowkidar, Peon, Anti-Malaria Beldar, Beldar/Labourer, Fitter/Coolie, Helper, Cleaner, Mali, Munad, Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Record Lifter, Key- man, Recovery Baillif, Khalasi and Oilman.

87. Perusal of these rules shows that it deals with number and character of posts; appointing authority; nationality, domicile and character of candidates appointed to the Service; disqualification; age, method of appointment and qualifications, probation of persons appointed to the Service; seniority of members of the Service; resignation from the Service; retirement; procedure imposing penalties; authority competent to impose penalties; pay and allowances; leave; gratuity; uniform; and contributory provident fund etc.

88. Under Rule 10, the inter se seniority of the members of the Service to which these rules applies, has to be determined cadre-wise in the manner as provided in the said rule. Therefore, there can’t be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply.

89. Under Rule 23, which deals with ‘over riding effect’, it is manifested that ‘the provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein so far as the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other rules with respect to PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 61 such matters’. And, Rule 24 relating to ‘Interpretation’ provides that ‘if any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same’.

90. Rule 10, 23 and 24 of the Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986, are reproduced as under:- “10. Seniority of members of the Service.- The seniority inter se of the members, in each cadre, shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may from time to time be extended by the appointing authority subject to a maximum of four months from the date of the order of merit order of appointment, determined shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of four months, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in the case any candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso. Note.- This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on provisional basis, and their seniority shall be determined as soon as they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of their regular appointment.

23. Over riding effect.- The provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein so far as the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 62 anything contained in any other rules with respect to such matters. Interpretation.-

24. If any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same.” The Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977

91. The Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘the Fire Brigade Rules’) are applicable to all Municipalities in the State of Punjab. Standing Orders for Members of Fire Brigade

92. As per Rule 3(a) of the Fire Brigade Rules, every Committee establishing a Fire Brigade shall with the approval of the Director, Local Government, Punjab, frame standing orders to regulate the formation and working of such brigade. It is also provided under Rule 3 that amongst other things, such standing orders shall also provide for the strength of organization, place of residence, discipline, nature of duty etc. of the brigade.

93. In terms of the Fire Brigade Rules, standing orders were framed for the formation and working of Fire Brigades in the State, vide Memo. No. FO-DLG-88/24496-24522, dated 15.06.1988, relevant clauses of which are discussed as under:- Clause 17 Each member of the fire brigade shall be supplied items of uniforms at the cost of the Municipal Committee concerned as per scale laid down. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 63 Clause 18 Prescribes for payment of Uniform Upkeep Allowance to Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, Fire Station Officer and Sub Fire Officer. Clause 20 Provides that all members of the fire brigade staff shall be provided with rent free accommodation within the fire station premises or as near to the fire station as possible. Clause 20(i) & (ii) Provides for free water and free electricity, at the prescribed scale. Clause 20(iii) Where any member of fire brigade staff is not provided with free accommodation, in lieu thereof, house rent at the rates admissible to other members of Government or Local Body employees, is required to be paid. Clause 21 Stipulates that ‘All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to 20 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty. The special casual leave, shall be added to individuals casual leave account and the officer in charge PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 64 shall see that not more than 10% of the staff is allowed leave at any time. Clauses 22 & 23 Makes provision for out door games, indoor games, newspapers, magazines and other penodicals of interest relating to fire service.

94. Revised Standing Orders were framed for the formation and working of Fire Brigades in the State, vide Memo. No. 1DLG-TSC-(F)- 04/12644-676, dated 09.07.2004, and the relevant clauses of which are discussed as under:- Clause 20 Stipulates that ‘All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty. One day weekly off allowed to all fire brigade employees in rotation wise or as per the officer in charge of the fire station. The special casual leave shall be added to individual’s casual leave account and the officer in charge shall see that not more than 10% of the staff is allowed leave at any time. Clause 23 All members of the fire brigade staff shall be entitled to risk allowance as admissible to the Delhi Fire Service from time to time.

95. Reading of the afore-stated Standing Orders framed under the provisions of the Fire Brigade Rules makes it evident that certain extra PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 65 incentives and service benefits, such as supply of uniforms at the cost of the Municipality; payment of Uniform Upkeep Allowance; providing of rent free accommodation within the fire station premises or as near to the fire station as possible and if not provided in lieu thereof, house rent at the rates admissible to other members of Government; free water and free electricity; entitlement of 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty; provisioning for out door games, indoor games, newspapers, magazines and other periodicals of interest relating to fire service; and risk allowance, are available to the members of the Fire Brigade. The afore-noted benefits are not admissible to other employees who are working in other Municipal Services. The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984

96. The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984 (for short, ‘the Safai Karamchari Rules’) are applicable to the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, working in the Municipalities in the State of Punjab.

97. Under Rule 9 of the Safai Karamchari Rules, the inter se seniority of the members of the Service has to be determined cadre-wise, in the manner as provided in the said rule. Therefore, there can’t be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 66

98. Rule 16 of the Safai Karamchari Rules prescribes that leave shall be admissible to said employees in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab CSR.

99. Rule 17 of the Safai Karamchari Rules deals with the ‘Holidays’ admissible to each member of this Service, and stipules that they shall have – (a) a paid holiday once a week, (b) three National Holidays, namely, 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October, and (c) four other holidays at the option of the member on any of the festivals specified in Appendix ‘C’ attached with the Safai Karamchari Rules.

100. Rule 20 of the Safai Karamchari Rules prescribes for supply of uniform to the members of the Service, free of cost. Other than this, they shall also be entitled to washing allowance at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time.

101. Rule 23 of the Safai Karamchari Rules relates to ‘Weekly working hours’ and provides that no member shall be required to work for more than eight hours on any day, and work shall be taken in two sessions, namely, in the morning and in the evening. Working hours shall be fixed by the Executive Officer for summer and winter.

102. Rule 26 of the Safai Karamchari Rules makes the provision of allotting a residential house to a member, if available, on monthly rent of ten percent of his emoluments or in lieu thereof House Rent Allowance shall have to be paid to him as per norms fixed by the Punjab Government for its employees.

103. Rules 27 and 28 of the Safai Karamchari Rules relate to over-riding effect and interpretation, which are to the effect that ‘the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 67 provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein so far as the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in other rules with respect to such matters’, and ‘if any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same’.

104. For ready reference, Rule 9, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28 and Appendix ‘C’ of the Safai Karamchari Rules, are reproduced as under:- “9. Seniority of members of Service.- The seniority inter se of the members in each cadre, shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may from time to time be extended by the appointing authority subject to a maximum of one month from the date of order of appointment, the order of merit determined shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of one month, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in the case any candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso. Note.- This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on provisional basis, and their seniority shall be determined as soon as they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of their regular appointment. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 68

16. Leave.- Leave shall be admissible to the members in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I.

17. Holidays.- (1) Each member shall have – (a) a paid holiday once a week; (b) three National Holidays, namely:- (1) (2) (3) 26th January; 15th August; and 2nd October; four other holidays at the option of the member on any (c) of the festivals specified in Appendix ‘C’.

20. Uniforms.- (1) supply of uniform free of cost. The members shall be entitled to (2) The members shall also be entitled to washing allowance at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time.

23. Weekly working hours.- (1) No member shall be required to work for more than eight hours on any day. (2) The work shall be taken in two sessions, namely, in the morning and in the evening. The working hours shall be fixed by the Executive officer for summer and winter.

26. Residential accommodation.- A member may be allotted a residential house, if available, on monthly rent of ten per cent of his emoluments or in lieu thereof House Rent Allowance shall be paid to him as per norms fixed by the Punjab Government for its employees.

27. Over-riding effect.- The provisions of these rules in respect of all the matters enumerated therein in so far as PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 69 the members are concerned shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in other rules with respect to such matter. Interpretation.-

28. If any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same.” The Punjab Municipal Services Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 (Recruitment and

105. The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the Punjab Municipal Services Rules’), deals with the recruitment and other conditions of service of following Municipal Services, as contained in Appendix ‘A’ attached with these rules:- Serial No. 1 2 3 4 Name of Service Punjab Municipal Service of Executive Officers Punjab Municipal Service of Secretaries Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Secretaries Punjab Municipal Service of Medical Officers of Health 4-A Punjab Municipal Service of Superintending 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Engineers (Civil) Punjab Municipal Service of Engineers Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Municipal Engineers Punjab Municipal Service of Town Planners Punjab Municipal Services of Assistant Town Planners Punjab Municipal Service of Planning Assistants Punjab Municipal Service of Architects Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Architects Punjab Municipal Service of Law Officers Punjab Municipal Service of Assistant Divisional Fire Officers Punjab Municipal Service of Legal Assistants Punjab Municipal Service of Fire Station Officers Punjab Municipal Assistants Punjab Municipal Service of Superintendents Punjab Municipal Service of Head Draftsmen Punjab Municipal Service of Accountants of Architectural Service CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 70 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Service Punjab Municipal Service of Draftsman Punjab Municipal Service of Sectional Officers Punjab Municipal Superintendents Punjab Municipal Service of Assistants/ Inspectors/ Head Clerks Punjab Municipal Service of Stenographers Punjab Municipal Service of Chief Sanitary Inspectors Punjab Municipal Service of Sanitary Inspectors Assistant

106. Rule 11 of the Punjab Municipal Services Rules deals with the Seniority of Members of Service and prescribes that the seniority inter se of the members of a Service shall be determined separately, for every category within a Service.

107. Rule 15 of the Punjab Municipal Services Rules deals with leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees, honoraris, house rent allowance, dearness allowances, fixation of pay, grant of increment etc. and specifically provides that the members of the Services shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules applicable to Punjab Government employees.

108. For ready reference, Rule 11 and 15 of the Punjab Municipal Services Rules are reproduced as under:- “11. Seniority of Members of Service.- seniority inter se of the members of a Service shall be determined separately, for every category within a Service from the dates of their continuous appointment to a post in the said category: The Provided that in the case of members appointed by direct recruitment their in-terse seniority shall be in the order of merit in which they have been placed by the Selection Committee: Provided further that in the case of two or more members appointed on the same date, a member appointed by direct recruitment shall be senior to a member appointed otherwise. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 71 Note.- This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on purely provisional basis.

15. Leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees and honouraris and other matters. -- In respect of leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees, honoraris, house rent allowance, dearness allowances, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, deputation and other matters not expressly provided in these rules, members shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules applicable to Punjab Government employees. The authority competent to sanction casual leave, earned leave, increment, efficiency bar will be as indicated against each category of service in appendix ‘D’: Provided that a person on transfer shall draw his travelling allowance and joining time benefit from the Municipal Committee to which he is transferred.” Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of Punjab Roadways

109. Categories of employees working in the Punjab Roadways, are governed under different rules. Some of the rules, to which this Court has been able to lay its hands, are discussed in the upcoming paras of the judgment.

110. Other than this, the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as, ‘the Transport Workers Act’) is also applicable to the employees of the Punjab Roadways. The Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules 1963

111. The Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1963, were notified in the Punjab Government Gazette on PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 72

03.07.1963, and the same were applied to persons appointed to the posts specified in Appendix ‘A’ to these rules, which includes the posts of Superintendent, P.T.C’s Office, Punjab, Investigation Officer, Head Assistant, Assistant Secretary, Assistant, Stenographer, Reader, Transport Sub-Inspector, Steno-typist, Clerks, Restorer, Senior Auditor, Senior Accountant, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Draftsman, Mechanic, Fitter, Upholstrer, Blacksmith, Painter, Electrician, Store-keeper, Drivers (attached to M.C. Garrage), and Motor Mechanic Driver. Under these rules, various conditions of service of such employees have been mentioned.

112. Rule 10 of these rules provides the manner in which inter se seniority of the members of Service shall be determined.

113. Under Rule 11 of these rules, the members of the Service were held entitled to such scales of pay including special pay, if any, as may be authorised by Government from time to time. And, under Rule 12, every member of the Service could be transferred to any other office or department of the State. Rule 13 of these rules deals with leave, pension and other matters and it is provided that in respect of leave, pension and other cognate matters not expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may subsequently be adopted or framed by the competent authority.

114. For ready reference, the provisions of Rule 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1963, are reproduced as under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 73 “10. The seniority inter-se of members of Service shall be determined by the date of their continuous appointments in the Service: Provided that in the case of members appointed directly, the order of merit determined by the Commission or the Board shall not be disturbed and persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection: Provided further that in case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- a) b) c) d) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; a member recruited by promotion shall be senior to a person recruited by transfer; in the case of members recruited by promotion transfer seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments they were promoted or transferred; and from which in the case of members recruited by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member, who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same then by their length of service in those appointments; and if the length of such service is the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Note.- (1) This rule shall not apply to persons appointed on purely provisional basis pending their passing the qualifying test. Note.- (2) In the case of members whose period of probation is extended under rule 9 of these rules, the date of appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be deemed to have been deferred to the extent the period of probation is extended.

11. Members of the Service shall be entitled to such scales of pay including special pay, if any, as may be authorised by PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 74 Government from time to time. The scales of pay at present in force in respect of specified posts are given in Appendix ‘A’ to these rules.

12. Every member of Service shall be liable to transfer under the orders of – (a) (b) the Government, department of the State; to any other office or the appointing authority, within the State of Punjab or any other place in India where he may be required Punjab administrative Government in the Service of which he is a member. to proceed under control

13. In respect of leave, pension and other cognate matters not expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may hereafter be adopted or framed by the competent authority under the Constitution of India or any law or rules made thereunder. Provided that in the case of members of the Service who were employees of erstwhile State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, leave, pension and other cognate matters shall, unless Punjab rules are made applicable to them with their consent or in accordance with law, be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to them immediately before the 1st November, 1956. The Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules 1977

115. The Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules 1977, were notified in the Punjab Government Gazette on

02.06.1977, and the same were applied to workshop staff holding posts in the Punjab Roadways, as specified in Appendix ‘A’ to these rules, which includes the posts of Service Station Incharge, Head Mechanic or Tyreman, Head Electrician, Mechanic, Instrument Mechanic, Boarer, Machinist, Calibrator Nozzle Grinder, Fitter, Welder, Blacksmith, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 75 Tyreman (tube repairer), Tinsmith, Turner, Carpenter, Upholster, Electrician, Painter, Radiator Repairer, Battery Attendant, Valcaniser, Assistant Painter, Assistant Fitter, Assistant Electrician, Assistant Carpenter, Assistant Battery Attendant, Assistant Blacksmith, Assistant Welder, Assistant Radiator Repairer, Assistant Upholster, Assistant Turner and Assistant Tyreman. Under these rules, various conditions of service of such employees have been mentioned.

116. For removal of doubts, it is clearly provided under Rule 1(4) of these rules that nothing in these rules shall apply to the persons to whom the Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1963, apply. Like the provisions contained in the aforementioned 1963 Rules, similar provisions regarding seniority, liability to transfer and leave, pay and other matters, have been contained under Rule 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the 1977 Rules, which are reproduced as under:- “11. The seniority inter se of members of the Service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the Service: Provided that in the case of members recruited by direct appointment, the order of merit determined by the Commission or the Board or other recruiting authority, as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority: Provided further that in case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- a) b) c) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; in the case of members recruited by promotion or transfer their seniority shall be determined PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 76 d) according to the seniority of such members in they were the appointments promoted or transferred; and from which in the case of members recruited by transfer from different cadres their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member, who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then by their length of service in those appointments; and if the length of such service is the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member. Note.- Seniority of members appointed on purely provisional basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment.

12. A member of the Service may be transferred by the Government to any post, whether included in any other service or not, on the same terms and conditions as are specified in rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I.

13. A member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the Appointing Authority.

14. In respect of pay, leave and all other matters not expressly provided for in these rules, the members of Service shall be governed by such laws, rules and regulations as may have been or may hereafter be adopted or made by the competent authority.” The Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977

117. The Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977, were also notified alongwith similar rules which are applicable to the workshop staff (as referred above), but by a separate notification. These rules contain the same provisions, and the only difference is that these were made applicable to the posts of Station PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 77 Supervisor Grade-I, Welfare Inspector or Chief Inspector, Station Supervisor Grade-II, Inspector, Yard Master, Driver, Booking Clerk, Station Wagon/Staff Car driver, Conductor and Adda Conductor. Therefore, the provisions of these rules are not being extracted herein. The Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977

118. The Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977, were also notified alongwith similar rules which are applicable to the Workshop Staff and Operational Staff (as referred above), but by a separate notification. These rules also contain the same provisions, and the only difference is that these were made applicable to the posts of Superintendent, Legal Assistant, Assistant, Stenographer, Steno-typist, Preventive Maintenance Assistant, Clerk, Tracer, Diesel Pump Attendant, Restorer, Accounts Staff i.e. Resident Senior Auditor, Resident Senior, Accountant, Junior Auditor, Cashier, Assistant Cashier, Assistant Accountant and Ledger Keeper; and Stores Staff i.e. Chief Store-keeper, Store Purchase Assistant, Store-keeper and Assistant Store- keeper. Therefore, the provisions of these rules are not being extracted herein.

119. It is apt to notice here that vide subsequent notifications issued from time to time, the rules applicable to the Workshop Staff, Operational Staff and Ministerial Staff of the Punjab Roadways, which have been referred above, were amended, and Rule 21-A was inserted therein, whereby the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, were made applicable to the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 78 Operational Staff. Other than this, Appendix ‘A’ appended to the rules applicable to Operational Staff was also substituted, by mentioning therein the posts of Station Supervisor Grade-I, Yard Master, Inspector, Bus Driver, Staff Car Driver, Conductor and Ticket Verifier only.

120. Rule 21-A, which was inserted in the said rules, reads as under:- Application of “21-A.- the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.– In respect of the matters, which are not specifically provided in these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, as contained in Appendix ‘D’ to these rules.” The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961

121. Perusal of the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of the Transport Workers Act reveals that despite existence of certain enactments like the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Factories Act, 1948, which cover certain sections of motor transport workers and certain aspects of their conditions of employment, there was, however, no independent legislation applicable to motor transport workers as a whole or for regulating the various aspects of their conditions of employment work and wages. Thus, it was considered desirable to have a separate legislative measure for motor transport workers which would cover matters like medical facilities, welfare facilities, hours of work spread-over, rest periods, overtime, annual leave with pay, etc., on the analogy of similar enactments for workers in factories, mines and plantations. Accordingly, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 79 the Transport Workers Act came into being by Act of 1961 w.e.f.

20.05.1961.

122. As per Section 1(4) of the Transport Workers Act, it applies to every motor transport undertaking, employing five or more motor transport workers.

123. Chapter IV and Chapter V of the Transport Workers Act contain the provisions for Welfare and Health (Sections 8 to 12), and Hours and Limitations of Employment (Sections 13 to 20), respectively. While under Chaper VII, provisions under the heading Wages and Leave (Sections 25 to 28) have been incorporated in respect of the motor transport workers.

124. For ready reference, the aforementioned provisions of the Transport Workers Act, as contained in Chapters IV, V and VII, are reproduced as under:- “ CHAPTER IV WELFARE AND HEALTH Canteens.-- (1) The State Government may make 8. rules requiring that in every place wherein one hundred motor transport workers or more employed in a motor transport undertaking ordinarily call on duty during every day, one or more canteens shall be provided and maintained by the employer for the use of the motor transport workers. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for -- (a) the date by which the canteens shall be provided; (b) the number of canteens that shall be provided and the standards in respect of construction, accommodation, furniture and other equipment of the canteens; PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 80 (c) (d) the foodstuffs which may be served therein and the charges which may be made therefor; the constitution of a managing committee for a canteen and the representation of the motor transport workers in the management of the canteen. (3) The State Government may, subject to such conditions as it may impose, delegate to the chief inspector the power to make rules with reference to clause (c) sub- section (2). (1) Rest rooms- In every place wherein motor 9. transport transport workers employed undertaking are required to halt at night, there shall be provided and maintained the employer for the use of those motor transport workers such number of rest rooms or such other suitable alternative accommodation, as may be prescribed. in a motor (2) The alternative accommodation to be provided under sub-section (1) shall be sufficiently lighted and ventilated and shall be maintained in a clean and comfortable condition. The State Government may prescribe (3) in respect of construction, accommodation, standards furniture and other equipment of rest rooms or alternative accommodation to be provided under this section.

10. Uniforms- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules requiring an employer of a motor transport undertaking to provide for the drivers, conductors and line checking staff employed in that undertaking such number and type of uniforms, raincoats or other like amenities for their protection from rain or cold as may be specified in the rules. (2)

There shall be paid to the drivers, conductors and line checking staff by the employer an allowance for washing of uniforms provided under sub-section (1) at such rates as may be prescribed; Provided that no such allowance shall be payable by an employer who has made at his own cost adequate arrangements for the washing of uniforms.

11. Medical facilities- These shall be provided and maintained by the employer so as to be readily available such medical facilities for the motor transport workers at PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 81 such operating centers and halting stations as may be prescribed by the State government.

12. First-aid facilities- (1) These shall be provided and maintained by the employer so as to be readily accessible during all working hours a first –aid box equipped with the prescribed contents in every transport vehicle. (2) Nothing except the prescribed contents shall be kept in a first-aid box. (3) The first-aid box shall be kept in the charge of the driver or the conductor of the transport vehicle who shall be provided facilities for training in the use thereof. CHAPTER V HOURS AND LIMITATION OF EMPLOTMENY

13. Hours of work for adult motor transport workers-- No adult motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in any day and forty-eight hours in any week: Provided that where any such motor transport worker is engaged in the running of any motor transport service on such long distance routes, or on such festive and other occasions as may be notified in the prescribed manner by the prescribed authority, the employer may, with the approval of such authority, require or allow such motor transport worker to work for more than eight hours in any day or forty-eight hours in any week but in no case for more than ten hours in a day and fifty-four in hours in a week, as the case may be: Provided further that in the case of a breakdown or dislocation of a motor transport service or interruption of traffic or act of God, the employer may, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, require or allow any such motor transport worker to work for more than eight hours in any day or more than forty-eight hours in any week.

14. Hours of work for adolescents employed as motor transport workers.-- No adolescent shall be employed or required to work as a motor transport worker in any motor transport undertaking— PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 82 (a) for more than six hours a day including rest interval of half-an-hour; (b) between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6 A.M.

15. Daily intervals for rest.— (1) The hours of work in relation to adult motor transport workers on each day shall be so fixed that no period of work shall exceed five hours and that no such motor transport worker shall work for more than five hours before he has had on interval for rest for at least half-an- hour; Provided that the provisions of this sub-section in so far as they relate to interval for rest shall not apply to a motor transport worker who is not required to work for more than six hours on that day. (2) The hours of work on each day shall be so fixed that a motor transport worker is, except in any case referred to in the second provision to section 13, allowed a period of rest of at termination of duty on any one day and the commencement of duty on the next following day. least nine consecutive hours between

16. Spread-over.— (1) The hours of work of an adult motor transport worker shall, except in any case referred to in the second provision to section 13 be so arranged that inclusive of interval for rest under section 15, they shall not spread-over more than twelve hours in any day. (2) The hours of work of an adolescent motor transport worker shall be so arranged that inclusive of interval for rest under section 14, they shall not spread-over more than nine hours in any day.

17. Split duty.— Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the hours of work of a motor transport worker shall not be split into more than two spells on any day.

18. Notice of hours of work.-- (1) There shall be displayed and correctly maintained by every employer a notice of hours of work in such form and manner as may be prescribed showing clearly PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 83 for every day the hours during which motor transport workers may be required to work. (2) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, no such motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work otherwise than in accordance with the notice of hours of work so displayed.

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- section (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-section (1) shall apply to any motor transport worker whose total period of employment including any day spent on leave is less than six day.

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 section 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. CHAPTER VII WAGES AND LEAVE

25. Act 4 of 1936 to apply to payment of wages to motor transport workers.-- The payment of Wages Act, 1936, as in force for the time being, shall apply to motor transport workers engaged PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 84 in a motor transport undertaking as it applies to wages payable in an industrial establishment as if the said Act had been extended to the payment of wages of such motor transport workers by a notification of the State Government under sub-section (5) of section I thereof, and as if a motor transport undertaking were and industrial establishment within the meaning of the said Act.

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 provision to section 13 or where he is required to work on any day of rest under sub-section (2) of section 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 section 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 subsection (2) of sub-section 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.

27. Annual leave with wages.-- (1) Without prejudice to such holidays as may be prescribed, every motor transport worker who has worked for a period of two hundred and forty days or more in a motor transport undertaking during a calendar year shall be allowed during the subsequent calendar year leave with wages for a number of days calculated at the rate of – (a) if an adult, one day for every twenty days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year; (b) if an adolescent, one day for every fifteen days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 85 (2) A motor transport worker whose service commences otherwise than on the first day of January shall be entitled to leave with wages at the rate laid down in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) if he has worked for two-thirds of the total number of days in the remainder of the calendar year. (3) If a motor transport worker is discharged or dismissed from service during the course of the year, he shall be entitled to leave with wages at the rate laid down in sub- section (1), even if he has not worked for the entire period specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), entitling him to earned leave. (4) In calculating leave under this section, fraction of leave of half a day or more shall be treated as one full day’s leave, and fraction of less than half a day shall be omitted. (5) If a motor transport worker does not in any one calendar year take the whole of the leave allowed to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, any leave not taken by him shall be added to the leave to be allowed to him in the succeeding calendar year: Provided that the total number of days of leave that may be carried forward to a succeeding year shall not exceed thirty in the case of an adult or forty in the case of an adolescent. (6) In this section “calendar year” means the year commencing on the first day of January. For the purposes of this section, leave Explanation.-- shall not include weekly holidays or holidays for festival or other similar occasions whether occurring during or at either end of the period of leave.

28. Wages during leave period.-- (1) For the leave allowed to a motor transport worker under section 27, he shall be paid at the rate equal to the daily average of his total full time wages for the days on which he worked during the moth immediately preceding his leave, exclusive of any overtime earnings and bonus, if any, but inclusive of dearness allowance and the cash equivalent of the advantage, if any, accruing by the concessional supply by the employer of food grains for the day on which he worked. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 86 (2) A motor transport worker who has been allowed leave for not less than four days under section 27 shall, on an application made by him in this behalf to the employer, be paid in advance, before his leave begins, an approximate amount equivalent to the wages payable to him for the period of his leave and any amount so paid shall be adjusted against the wages due to him for the aforesaid period of leave. (3) If a motor transport worker is not granted leave to which he is entitled under sub-section (3) of section 27, he shall be paid wages in lieu thereof at the rate specified in sub-section (1).”

125. A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions of the Transport Workers Act makes it clear that as per Chapter-IV the State Government and/or Transport Undertakings/employer are duty bound to make adequate measures for the welfare and health of such motor transport workers such as canteens, rest rooms, uniforms, medical facilities and first-aid-facilities.

126. Further, the provisions of Sections 13 to 20 under Chapter V, contemplate fixed hours of work, split of duty, weekly rest as well as compensatory day of rest.

127. Not only this, under Chapter VII, specific provisions for payment of extra wages for overtime, grant of annual leave with wages, payment of wages during leave period have been prescribed, in favour of the motor transport workers. Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC)

128. Class III and IV (now group ‘C’ and ‘D’) employees of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) are governed by the regulations called as ‘the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (Conditions of appointment and Service Regulation) 1981 (for short, ‘the PRTC PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 87 Regulations’), which came into force on 16.01.1981 and subsequently amended from time to time. Posts of the employees of the PRTC have been specified in Appendix ‘A’ appended to the PRTC Regulations. Relevant extract of Appendix ‘A’ is reproduced as under:- Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (i) 22 (ii) 22 (iii) 23 24 25(i) 25(ii) 25(iii) 26 27 28 29 Appendix - A Designation Section Officer Junior Engineer Superintendent Senior Assistant Mechanical Draftsman Store Keeper Sr. Scale Stenographer Jr. Scale Stenographer Steno-typist Cashier Clerk Asstt. Cashier A.S.K. Dispenser T.S.V.C. D.P.C. Station Supervisor Chief Inspector Welfare Inspector Inspector Yard Master Contract basis Driver Category II Contract basis Driver Category I. Driver Regular. Staff Car Driver Sub Inspector Contract basis Conductor Category II Contract basis Conductor Category I Conductor Regular S.S.I. (Tyres) (i) Contract basis SSI Category II (ii) Contract basis SSI Category I (iii) SSI Regular Head Mechanic Tyres (i) Contract basis Head Mechanic Category II (ii) Contract basis Head Mechanic Category I (iii) Head Mechanic Regular PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 88 30 31 32 33 34 35 and 36 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 51 52 52 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Head Electrician Head Carpenter Head Carpenter of Body Fabrication Cell Head Blacksmith Blacksmith Body Fabrication Cell (i) Contract basis Machinist, Mechanic Category II (ii) Contract basis Machinist, Mechanic Category I (iii) Machinist, Mechanic Regular (i) Contract basis Fitter, Tyreman, Welder, Carpenter, Upholster, Painter, Blacksmith, Borer, Electrician, Radiator Repairer, Turner, Vulcanizer, Battery Attendant and Asstt. Tyreman Category II (ii) Contract basis above categories Category- I (iii) Above categories on Regular basis Asstt. Fitter (i) Contract basis Helper Category-II (ii) Contract basis Helpers Category-I (iii) Helper Regular. Cleaner Sweeper Chowkidar Daftri Record lifter Peon Store Boy Gate Keeper Mali Gunman Ward Attendant

129. As per Regulation 3(i) of the PRTC Regulations all the employees of the PRTC are required to perform such duties and carry out such functions as may be entrusted to them by the Corporation or the Managing Director or the officer authorized by the Corporation. The employees may be asked to carry out only such duties as they are ordinarily required to perform and the same are mentioned in their appointment letters. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 89

130. Under Regulation 3(iii) it is specifically provided that an employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transport Workers Act. Meaning thereby, various provisions and benefits enshrined under the Transport Workers Act, which have already been reproduced and discussed in the foregoing paras while referring the provisions applicable to the employees of the Punjab Roadways, are also applicable to the employees of the PRTC.

131. Under Regulation 4(a) of the PRTC Regulations, the Class III employees are classified into three categories, namely, (i) Ministerial Staff, (ii) Operation Staff, and (iii) Workshop Staff, whereas under Regulation 4(b), Class IV employees have been classified into two categories, namely, (i) Ministerial Staff and (ii) Workshop Staff.

132. From a bare reading of aforementioned classification of Class III and Class IV into sub-categories, one thing is clear that the posts mentioned in such sub-categories are distinct from each other and such classification has been made keeping in mind the nature of duties being performed by ministerial staff, operation staff and workshop staff. For example, Class IV employees holding the posts of Daftri, Record lifter, Mali, Gunman, Chowkidar, Gate Keeper, Ward Attendant, Store Boy and Peon have been kept under the category of ‘Ministerial Staff’, whereas Helper, Cleaner and Sweeper are kept under the category of ‘Workshop Staff’. In similar manner, classification of Class III employees has been made. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 90

133. Regulation 12 of the PRTC Regulations entails the manner for determination of inter se seniority of the members of service in each cadre. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service or under same classification is different, then their separate seniority shall have been fixed cadre-wise.

134. Regulation 19 of the PRTC Regulations talks about ‘Transfers’ and under sub-regulation (i) thereof it is provided that all employees are liable to be transferred to any station in the jurisdiction of the Corporation by the Competent Authority or Managing Director. Further, under Regulation 19(ii), General Manager will be competent for the transfer of the staff to any place in the jurisdiction of his Depot.

135. However, Regulation 19 nowhere provide for transfer of the employees inter-se their category/classification provided under Regulation 4, e.g. from Ministerial Staff to Operation Staff or vice-versa.

136. Provisions of Regulations 36 to 40, contained in Part-IV of the PRTC Regulations are almost pari materia to the provisions of Chapter V of the Transport Workers Act, which have already been extracted and discussed while mentioning the Act and Rules pertaining to the employees of the Punjab Roadways.

137. As already noticed above, by virtue of Regulation 3(iii) of the PRTC Regulations, all the provisions of the Transport Workers Act are also applicable to the motor transport workers of the PRTC.

138. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the relevant provisions of the PRTC Regulations are reproduced as under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 91 “3. Duties of the employees (i) All the employees of the Corporation shall perform such duties and carry out such functions and exercise such powers as may be entrusted to them by the Corporation or the Managing Director or the officer authorized by the Corporation. The employees may be asked to carry out only such duties as they are ordinarily required to perform and the same are mentioned in their appointment letters. (ii) No employee shall directly or indirectly engage in any other business, occupation or employment nor shall he accept any fees, emoluments or commission whatsoever from any person other than the Corporation without prior permission of the Corporation. (iii) An employee shall be at Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in Motor Transport Workers Act. the disposal of

4. Classification of employees. (1) For the purpose of these regulations the employees shall be classified as under:- (a) Class III. (i) Ministerial Staff:- Personal Assistant, Superintendent Grade-II, Assistant, Senior Scale Stenographer, Junior Scale Stenographer, Steno-typist, Cashier, Clerk, Assistant Cashier, Assistant Store Keeper, Ticket Stock Verifier Clerk, Dispenser, Diesel Pump Clerk, Sectional officer (Civil), Mechanical Draftsman, Section Officer, Store Keeper, Draftsman (Civil), Sectional Officer (Electric). (ii) Operation Staff: Station Supervisor, Chief Inspector, Welfare-Inspector, Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Yard Master, Driver, Staff Car Driver, Conductor. (iii) Workshop Staff Station Incharge Service (Mechanical), Service Station Incharge (Tyres), Head Mechanic, Head Electrician, Head- Blacksmith, Head Carpenter, Machinist, Mechanic, Fitter, Tyreman, Borer, Welder, Blacksmith, Assistant Tyreman, Carpenter, upholster, Electrician, Painter, Radiator Repairer, Turner, Vulcanisor, Battery Attendant, (Crankshaft), Assistant Fitter, Head Mechanic PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 92 Assistant Electrician, Assistant Carpenter, Assistant Blacksmith, Assistant Welder, Assistant Radiator Repairer, Assistant Upholster, Assistant Battery Attendant, Assistant painter, Assistant Turner, Service Station Inchcarge(Diploma Holder), Head Carpenter (Body Fabrication Cell), Head Blacksmith, (Body Fabrication Cell). (b) Class IV Comprising of Ministerial and Workshop Employees enumerated below:- i) Ministerial Staff: Daftri, Record lifter, Mali, Gunman, Chowkidar, Gate Keeper, Ward Attendant, Store Boy, Peon. ii) Workshop Staff: Helper, Cleaner, Sweeper. 2) The scale of pay of each post will be determined per regulation 14. This is subject to upward revision as and when necessary. 3) When a new post is created, it shall be suitably classified by the Corporation. 4) The condition of service of an employee on deputation shall be such as may be laid down by the Corporation with the approval of the Government.

12. Seniority :- The seniority interse of members of service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in that cadre of the service : Provided that in case of members recruited by direct appointment the order of merit determined by the Commission of the board may be, or other recruiting authority as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority and persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection; Provided further that in the case of two or more members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 93 a) b) c) d) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise. a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer. In the case of members recruited by promotion or transfer seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which promoted or transferred; and In the case of members recruited by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawing higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, appointments; and if the length of service is also the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member. length of service, then by Note :- Seniority of members appointed on purely provisional basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the Date of such regular appointment.

19. Transfers: i) All employees are liable to be transferred to any station in the jurisdiction of the Corporation by the Competent Authority or Managing Director. A fifteen days notice shall be given to the employees affected by this transfer except in cases where because of exigencies of work such notice cannot be served. Ordinarily joining time shall be allowed to the employee under orders of transfer except when it is a local transfer or when transfer ordered in special circumstances. The General Manager will be competent for the ii) transfer of the staff to any place in the jurisdiction of his Depot. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 94 PART IV

36. Working Hours : Holidays and Leaves : Hours of Work: The daily and weekly hours of work in case of workshop staff shall be as prescribed in the factories Act 1948, and in the case of the staff other than the workshop and direction staff, the same shall be as prescribed in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. As regards the direction staff, pattern of Punjab Roadways will be followed.

37. Overtime Allowance The overtime allowance shall be paid to the workshop and the operation staff in accordance with provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, as the case may be.

38. Notice of Hours of Work : Notice regarding hours of work for every class and group of employees in the Corporation shall be displayed on Notice Boards maintained Corporation. the purpose

39. Notice of Holidays & Pay : Notice specifying the : a) Weekly holidays. b) Date on which compensatory holidays, if any and . c) Date on, which wages are to be paid. shall be displayed on the notice boards at suitable place.

40. Shift Working : In the workshop, every class or group of any part thereof may work for more than one shift at the discretion of the Managing Director/ General Manager. If more than one shift is worked, the employees shall be liable to be transferred from one shift to another. No shift working shall be discontinued without one month’s notice being given prior to such discontinuance, of the shift to permanent employees is discharged. If as a result of the discontinuance of shift working, any permanent employee is to become surplus, an attempt will be made to absorb him in other services of the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 95 Corporation. If, however, any of them cannot be absorbed and is to be dispensed with, he will be discharged having regard to the length of his satisfactory service, that with lesser service shall be discharged first. If shift working restarted, a week’s notice thereof shall be given by pasting a notice at the main entrance to the service and the employee so discharged shall on the restarting of the shift be given preference for re-employment, regard being had to the length of their previous service, those with the longest shall be re- employed first. Operational and supervisory staff shall be regulated by the provisions of the Motor Transport Worker Act and the Rules made thereunder.” Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board

139. In pursuance of the powers conferred by sub-section (2)(b) and (c) of Section 72 read with Section 12 of the Punjab Water supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1976, the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board with the previous sanction of the Government, framed the Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Services) Regulations, 1981 (hereafter referred to as ‘the 1981 Regulations’, for all the whole-time regular employees only. Various categories of Services are contained in Appendix ‘B’ of the 1981 Regulations. Relevant extract of Appendix ‘B’ of the 1981 Regulations, so far it pertains to Class-III and Class-IV Services, is reproduced as under:- “ Appendix ‘B’ Class-III Sr. No. Designation of Post

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Senior Auditor P.A. to M.D. Superintendent Gr.-II Superintendent Gr.-IV Assistant/Accounts Clerks Stenographer Steno-Typist S.D.C’s / Senior Clerks Clerks PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 96

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Telephone Operator Electrician Head Draftsman Grade-I Head Draftsman Grade-II Assistant Draftsman Tracer Junior Engineer (Civil & Mech.) Surveyor Car-Driver Duplicating Operator Class-IV Daftri Jamadar Peon Peon Sweeper Chowkidar Ferro Khalasi”

140. As per Regulation 2.13 of the 1981, the appointing authority for various posts is competent to order transfer of all employees/officers within their sphere of jurisdiction and control, and the Managing Director is competent to order transfer of employees/officers from one circle to other circle and from field offices to the Head Office and vice versa.

141. First proviso under Regulation 3.2 of the 1981 Regulations provides that ‘where there are different cadres in a service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre’.

142. Under Regulations 9.1 and 9.2 of the 1981 Regulations, it is provided that the employees of the Board, in the matters of leave, joining time fee, suspension, honorarium, dearness allowance, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, liveries and other Cognate matters, to which regulations are not made, shall be governed by the Punjab CSR, framed by the State of Punjab. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 97

143. For ready reference, relevant provisions of the 1981 Regulations are reproduced as under:- “2.13. The appointing authority for various posts included in the service shall be competent to order transfer of all employees / officers within their sphere of jurisdiction and control, Managing Director, however shall be competent to order transfer of employees / officers from one circle to other circle and from field offices to the Head Office and vice versa.”

3.2 The seniority inter se of members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of the service: Provided that for determining seniority inter se of members of the service in each category transferred and allocated to the Board in pursuance of provisions contained in section 29 of the Act, length of service on a post in the category in which such an employee joined for the first time in the Public Health Department, shall be taken into account: Provided that where there are different cadres in a service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre; Provided further that in the case of member recruited by direct appointment, order of merit determined by the Board by the Board or other recruiting authority, as the case may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority: Provided further that in the case of two members, appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows: - (a) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a members appointed by transfer; (b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; (c) in the case of members appointed by promotion of transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 98 (d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to member who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment, and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then, by their length of service in these appointments and if the length of such service is also the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member.

1. Notes:- Seniority of member on purely provisional basis shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment.

2. In the case of members, whose period of probation is extended under regulation 2.9 of regulations, the date of appointment for the purpose of this regulation shall be deemed to have been deferred to the extent the period of probation is extended.

9.1 Leave, Joining time fee, Suspension, Honorarium, Dearness Allowance, Fixation of pay, Grant of increment, Crossing of efficiency bar, Liveries and other Cognate Matters – Punjab Civil Services Rules framed by the Government in respect of persons employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab shall, as far as may be, apply to all matters with respect to which regulations are not made. In respect of the leave, joining time, suspension fee, 9.2 honorarium, dearness allowance, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, liveries, deputation and other cognate matters not expressly provided in these regulations, employees corresponding provisions contained the rules and instructions applicable to Punjab Government employees.” shall be Governed by Statutory Provisions re: conditions of service of the employees of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Punjab Mandi Board)

144. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (popularly known as ‘Punjab Mandi Board’) was established on 26.05.1961, under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, with an objective to PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 99 control and supervise the marketing network of sale, purchase, storage and processing of processed or non-processed agricultural produce from agricultural, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest produce. However, as per Section 3(8) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, State Government has the power to exercise superintendence and control over the Punjab Mandi Board and its officers. And, the Punjab Mandi Board has the power of superintendence and control over the Market Committees constituted under the said 1961 Act. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989

145. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989, are applicable to such Class III (now Group C) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, which have been specified in Appendix ‘A’ to these rules, thereby prescribing their conditions of service. In Appendix ‘A’ while mentioning the designation of post, it has also been specified that whether a particular post falls under the category of ‘Technical’ or ‘Non-Technical’ post. For ready reference, relevant extract of Appendix ‘A’ appended to the aforementioned rules, is reproduced as under:- “ APPENDIX ‘A’ [See Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4] Sr. No. Designation Post 1 2 3 4 5 6 Superintendent Grade II Legal Assistant Senior Internal Auditor/ Auditor/ Superintendent S.A.S. Personal Assistant Circle Head Draftsman Publicity Supervisor Whether technical or non-technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Technical Non-Technical PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 100 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Technical Technical Technical Mechanic-cum- (Civil)/ (Public Engineer Engineer Non-Technical Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Technical Non-Technical Technical Assistant Technical Assistant (Cotton) Liberarian Programmer Planning Assistant Assistant Secretary Market Committee Laboratory Incharge Divisional Head Draftsman (Civil) Divisional Head Draftsman (Public Health) Divisional Head Draftsman (Electrical) Divisional Head Draftsman (Two Planning) Junior Junior Health) Technical Junior Engineer (Electrical) Junior Engineer (Mechanical) Technical Technical Senior Draftsman (Architect) Technical Senior Technician Assistant Programmer Laboratory Assistant Superintendent Grade IV (Civil)/ Superintendent Grade Health)/ (Public IV Superintendent Grade IV (Electrical) Assistant/ Cashier/ Care Taker/ Assistant (Cotton) Publicity Assistant Senior Scale Stenographer Gradomgj Supervisor Statistical Assistant Stenographers Engineering Wing in the field Modeller-cum-Pattern Maker Non-Technical Non-Technical Photographer-cum-Cinema Operator Assistant Librarian Artist Junior Auditor Munim Accounts Accounts Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical (Civil)/ Clerk CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 101 Technical Technical Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Draftsman Assistant Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Assistant Draftsman (Civil)/ Assistant Assistant Draftsman (Public Health) Assistant (Architect) Draftsman (Town Planning) Divisional Accountant (Civil)/ Divisional Accountant (Public Health)/ Divisional Accountant (Electrical) Sub-Divisional Clerk/ Senior Clerk of the Engineering Wing in the Field Security Officer Junior Scale Stenographer Data Entry Operator Grading Assistant Clerks, P.B.X. typist, Operator, Clerk Store Project/ Clerks Engineering Wing at the head quarters Non-Technical Computer Non-Technical Laboratory Attendant Non-Technical Steno-typist Non-Technical Drivers Non-Technical Restorer Non-Technical Security Guard Non-Technical Lift Operator Machine Operator (Gestantor) Non-Technical Non-Technical Plumber Technical Electrician Technical Carpenter Non-Technical Library Attendant Non-Technical Sub-Divisional Assistant Clerk/ Clerks Engineering Wing in the Field Ferro Printer Tracer (Civil)/ Tracer (Public Health)/ Tracer (Electricity)/ Town (Divisional Tracer Planning) Sr. No. 63 is not mentioned in the Appendix Road Roller Driver Surveyor Non-Technical Non-Technical Non-Technical Technical” 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 65 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 102

146. Rule 11 of these Rules entails the manner for determination of inter se seniority of the members of service in each cadre. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service is different, then their separate seniority shall have been fixed cadre-wise.

147. As per Rule 12 of the said Rules, a member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. Further, Rule 13(1) of the said rules, extends the applicability of the provisions of the Punjab CSR to such employees. Rules 11, 12 and 13 of the aforementioned Rules, are reproduced as under:- “11. Seniority of members of Service.- Seniority inter se of the members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of the Service: The Provided that in the case of members appointed by direct appointment who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a maximum period of four months from the date of order of appointment, the seniority based on the order of merit determine by the recruiting authority, shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in a case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of four months in consultation with the recruiting authority, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in case a candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins, the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso: PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 103 Provided further that in the case of two members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- (a) (b) (c) (d) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; in the case of members appointed by promotion or transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; from different cadres, in the case of members appointed by transfer seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawn a higher rate of pay in his previous appointment, and if the rate of pay drawing are also the same then by appointments; and if the length of such service is also the same an older member shall be senior to a younger member. length of service Note.- Seniority of members of the Service appointed on purely provisional basis or on daily wages shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment.

12. Liability to serve.- A member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority.

13. Leave, pay and other matters etc.- (1) In respect of pay, leave and other matters expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 104 (2) In respect of the provident fund and gratuity, the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1965 and the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1987.” The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class IV) Service Rules, 1988

148. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989, are applicable to such Class IV (now Group D) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, which have been specified in Appendix ‘A’ to these rules i.e. Daftri, Jamadar, Chowkidar Peon/ Library Attendant, Peon-cum-Chowkidar, Sweeper, Head Mali, Helper, Beldar and Ferro Khalasi, prescribing their conditions of service.

149. Rule 10 of these Rules prescribes the manner for determination of inter se seniority of the members of service in each cadre. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service is different, then their separate seniority shall have been fixed cadre-wise.

150. As per Rule 11 of the said Rules, a member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. Rule 12(1) of the said rules, extends the applicability of the provisions of the Punjab CSR to the members of the Service. Rules 11 and 12 of the aforementioned rules are reproduced as as under:- “10. Seniority of members of Service.- Seniority inter se of the members of the service in each cadre shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre of the Service: The PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 105 Provided that in the case of members appointed by direct appointment who join within the period specified in the order of appointment or within such period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing authority subject to a maximum period of four months from the date of order of appointment, the seniority based on the order of merit determine by the recruiting authority, shall not be disturbed: Provided further that in a case a candidate is permitted to join the Service after the expiry of the said period of four months in consultation with the recruiting authority, his seniority shall be determined from the date he joins the Service: Provided further that in case a candidate of the next selection has joined the Service before the candidate referred to in the preceding proviso joins, the candidate so referred shall be placed below all the candidates of the next selection who join within the time specified in the first proviso: Provided further that in the case of two members appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:- (a) (b) (c) (d) a member recruited by direct appointment shall be senior to a member recruited otherwise; a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; in the case of members appointed by promotion or transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; from different cadres, in the case of members appointed by transfer seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawn a higher rate of pay in his PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 106 length of previous appointment, and if the rate of pay drawing are also the same then by appointments; and if the length of such service is also the same an older member shall be senior to a younger member. service Note.- Seniority of members of the Service appointed on purely provisional basis or on daily wages shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view the date of such regular appointment.

11. Liability to Service.- A member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority.

12. Leave, pay and other matters etc.- (1) In respect of pay, leave and other matters expressly provided for in these rules, the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time. (2) In respect of the provident fund and gratuity, the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1965 and the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1987.” The Punjab Market Committees (Class III) Service Rules, 1989; and The Punjab Market Committees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989

151. These two sets of rules are applicable to the members of the Service working in the Market Committees, over which the Punjab Mandi Board has the power of superintendence and control. Since, the provisions governing the conditions of service of the members of the Services under these rules, are akin to the rules applicable to the corresponding members of the Services of the Punjab Mandi Board, with PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 107 a view to avoid repetition, the same are not being adverted to or reproduced. NOTIFICATION NO. 6/10/79/GE-3969, PUBLISHED IN THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT GAZETTE (EXTRA ORDINARY), DATED 07.04.1980 & CLARIFICATION ISSUED VIDE MEMO. NO. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, DATED 02.03.1994

152. At this juncture, it is imperative for this Court to refer the notification dated 07.04.1980, issued by the State of Punjab, which in fact, is the root of the present controversy. By the said notification, it was notified by the State of Punjab that ‘all Saturdays of every month instead of second and last Saturdays of each month as earlier notified shall be observed as holidays in Government offices through out the State of Punjab till further orders’. The Government further fixed the working hours in these offices from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M., with half an hour break from 1.30 P.M. to 2.00 P.M.

153. For convenience and ready reference, complete notification dated 07.04.1980, is reproduced as under:- “ SEAL PUNJAB GOVERNMENT PUNJAB GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY Published by Authority CHANDIGARH, MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1980 (CHAITRA 10, 1902 SAKA) (GENERAL ESTABLISHMENT BRANCH) NOTIFICATION The 7th April, 1980 6/10/79/GE-3969 - In Notification No. 6/18/79/GE(6)/10898, DATED THE 6th September, 1979, it is hereby notified that all Saturdays of every month instead of second and last Saturdays of each partial modification PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 108 month as earlier notified shall be observed as holidays in Government offices through out the State of Punjab till further orders. The working hours in these offices shall be from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. half an hour break from 1.30 P.M. to 2.00 P.M. K.S. NARANG Chief Secretary to Government Punjab”

154. Subsequently, Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated

02.03.1994, on the subject of ‘performing of government duty by the field staff on gazetted holiday’, was issued in continuation of an earlier letter No. 6/10/93-6PP111/20107, dated 03.11.1993, issued by the Punjab Government, thereby clarifying that ‘the employees who are working in the field, they are entitled only for Sunday holiday’. In other words, the field staff is not entitled for two days holiday in a week in terms of the letter dated 02.03.1994, issued by the Punjab Government. Letter dated

02.03.1994, which is in Gurmukhi script, alongwith its translation into English, as supplied by Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, is taken on record of CWP No. 6535 of 2017, as Mark-‘A’, and the same reads as under:- “Subject: Regarding deputing of field staff on official duty on Gazetted Holiday. According to the Punjab Government letter No. 6/10/93-6PP 111/20107, dated 3.11.93, the office staff working under the Punjab State Government offices are entitled to holiday on Saturday and Sunday. The employees who are working in the field, they are entitled holiday on Sunday only. Thus, the field staff is not entitled for two days holiday in a week as per abovesaid letter of Punjab Government. Regular work-charged and work-charged staff is entitled for holidays as per Rule 1.132 of P.W.D. Code and regular establishment work-charged are entitled for P.W.D. Code Rule 1.132 and as per the draft rules which have been sent to the Government for approval, under Rule 1.16 which is detailed as under:- 1.16 Leave Pension & Other Matters PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 109 a) Punjab Civil Services Rules shall be applicable to the regular work-charged employees except notified Government Public Holidays for offices. However, they are entitled one rest after every six working days alongwith 3 National Holidays and two restricted holidays during respective calendar year.” schedule SUBMISSIONS BY AMICUS CURIAE

155. Vide order dated 04.03.2024, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, were appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, subject to their convenience. However, probably on being already occupied, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, could not make it possible to appear all the times and, therefore, in his absence the required job was well accomplished by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, to assist the Court. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, first of all referred the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and elaborated in detail its scope, by submitting that where any workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, for recovery of the said admitted claim/entitlement, the recovery proceedings can be started akin to the execution of the decree/order. In fact, he insists that in case, if there is a pre-decided or pre-existing right in terms of money and same being recoverable from the employer, Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is the enabling provision of law which enables the employee a speedy remedy for computation and recovery of his monetary and non-monetary benefits. Broadly speaking, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate submits that provision PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 110 enshrined in Section 33C(2) is nothing but an execution proceeding in pursuance to a money decree.

156. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, cited para Nos. 4 and 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries (supra), and submitted that when there is a dispute regarding the entitlement of the claim of workmen/employee, the Labour Court/Tribunal has no power to proceed with the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act as the said provision is only for the purpose of execution.

157. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, further argued that in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), a comparative study of the service conditions of the employees before it vis- (cid:224)-vis co-employees working in the Octroi Department of Punjab Municipal Committees, was done and thereafter it was held that the employees before it, being similarly situated vis-(cid:224)-vis the other employees working in the Octroi Department are entitled for one and same relief i.e. entitlement for extra wages for working on Saturdays. For reaching to the said conclusion, the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted the service conditions of both of them i.e. Clerks and Peons working at the Octroi Check-posts and Barriers by comparing it with other office based colleagues, who enjoyed Saturday as “off day”. On a comparative study, Hon’ble the Apex Court found that: i) There was a common seniority list of both sets of employees; PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 111 ii) Both sets of employees were getting similar pay scales; iii) Posts of both sets of employees were inter- transferable; and iv) Service conditions of both segments of the employees were governed by same set of rules. Thus, argument addressed by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, is to establish that in Sirhind’s case (supra), there was a comparative study of two sets of employees amongst equals and thereafter, the benefit for working on Saturdays was granted by the Court to the employees before it.

158. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate also referred the Punjab Government Gazette notification No. 6/10/79/GE-3969, dated 07.04.1980, vide which all Saturdays of every month, instead of second and last Saturday, were ordered to be observed as holidays in Government Offices and working hours were fixed from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, with lunch break of half-an-hour from 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm. He also pertinently pointed out that later on Punjab Government had issued Memo No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated

02.03.1994, clarifying that only office staff would be entitled for holidays on Saturdays and Sundays and not the field staff.

159. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, also referred Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR (already reproduced above), for explaining the definition of “whole time of a Government Employee at the disposal of Government”, and submitted that the employees, whose services are PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 112 governed by the Punjab CSR, are in fact, whole time employees of the State Government and their services are at disposal of the Government. By giving a wider thought to it, Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, submitted that infact, the State Government may require the working from its employees (Public Servants) at any point of time and, therefore, their working period should be considered as 24 x 7.

160. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, further submitted that in fact, each and every case is to be examined separately/individually with regard to the facts involved therein, such as service conditions and the rules applicable to the service. However, there is no denial that any individual amongst equals cannot be treated differently by causing any kind of discrimination with him. Therefore, being an Amicus Curiae, Mr. Anurag Goyal while sharing his thought pleads that each and every case vis-(cid:224)-vis the departmental conditions are required to be addressed independently on individual basis.

161. In the next limb of his submissions, Mr. Anurag Goyal has pointed out that some of the employees of Nagar Council, Samrala, had filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal, for claiming extra wages for working on Saturdays, which was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal. When the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal were assailed before the Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the writ petition filed by the Nagar Council, Samrala, was dismissed. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 113 Subsequent thereto, both the aforesaid orders, i.e. passed by the Industrial Tribunal as well as learned Single Bench of this Court, were assailed by way of LPA No. 1178 of 2015, titled as Nagar Council Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others, which was allowed by reversing the order/judgment passed by learned Tribunal as well as Single bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.04.2016 (reported as 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 10136). In fact, in its order dated 26.04.2016, Hon’ble Division Bench/Letters Patent Bench affirmed the viewpoint of another Division Bench of this Court, which was adopted in the case of Balbir Singh (supra). Subsequently, said ratio was again followed and applied by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Lal v. Sub Divisional Engineer, Sub Division Horticulture, PWD (B&R), Ludhiana and others” (LPA No. 913 of 2019, decided on 24.07.2019, reported as Law Finder Doc Id # 1598870).

162. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, also submitted that the Employees’ Union of the Fire Brigade Department of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, had raised a claim of overtime allowance, by filing CWP No. 1221 of 2010, titled as “Municipal Fire Brigade Union v. State of Punjab and others”, before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), and the same was disposed of by a Single Bench vide order dated 25.01.2010, by directing the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, to take an appropriate decision in that regard. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, rejected the claim of the Employees’ Union of the Fire Brigade, vide order dated 22.04.2010, on the premise PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 114 that as per the Government circular dated 10.11.1993, the Fire Brigade employees have been granted certain special facilities such as: The employees shall be given 20 special casual leave “i) in addition to the usual casual leave as admissible to other staff, in lieu of gazetted holidays and Saturdays and second Saturday; ii) Uniform at the cost of Municipal Council; iii) Rent free accommodation within Fire Station or near to Fire Station or prescribed scale along with free water and electricity upto certain limit or in the alternative, the house rent at prescribed rates; Provision for outdoor games, News papers and iv) Magazines in Fire Station. Since the Fire Staff has accepted the appointment after v) fully knowing the nature of duties and responsibilities, therefore, they are bound to show desired discipline.” Challenging the order dated 22.04.2010, Employees’ Union again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 12809 of 2010, titled as “Municipal Fire Brigade Union Regd. v. State of Punjab and others”. Thereupon, claim of the members of the Fire Brigade Department for grant of ‘over time allowance’ was held to be untenable by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in its decision dated 23.07.2010, passed in CWP No. 12809 of 2010.

163. Mr. Anurag Goyal, thus, submitted that the employees of the Fire Brigade Department, whose services are governed by the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977, and general Standing Orders issued thereunder, are not entitled for any extra wages for the duty performed on Saturdays. Rather, it requires to be conceived in advance in the mind of a person seeking employment in such like services that in case of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 115 emergency or exigencies of the service, he/she may be required to be deployed to meet out an emergent situation for en-number of days continuously, even without any break. However, considering arduous nature of duties of the members of the Fire Brigade, the Government has taken a conscious decision and granted number of incentives/benefits in favour of such employees, while framing the Standing Orders under the Punjab Municipal Fire Brigade Rules, 1977, which are not available to other Services/categories of employees working in the same municipality.

164. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate also relied upon the earlier judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Nagar Council, Mandi Gobindgarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others (CWP No. 8344 of 2015, decided on 29.07.2016, reported as Law Finder Doc Id # 796970), wherein P.B. Bajanthri, J. (Judge of this Court) rejected the claim of extra wages for working on Saturdays by observing that the employees of said case, who were belonging to the cadres of Tubewell Operator, Assistant Pump Driver, Beldar, Plumber, Fitter, Sewerman and Sevadar, do not fall under the category of ‘a cadre of person’, who discharge duties both in office as well as in the field. In the said judgment, Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Cour) even held that the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) is in ‘personam’ and not in ‘rem’. ARUMENTS OF MR. SANJEEV SONI, ADVOCATE, REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF PATIALA, SANGRUR AND FEROZEPUR

165. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, submitted that all employees working in the Municipal Corporations/Municipal Councils PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 116 cannot be held entitled for their claim of extra wages/salary in lieu of their working on Saturdays or the ‘off day’. In fact, all such employees have failed to understand the true spirit of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), wherein after examining the facts of that particular case, their Lordships’ had found that the employees working in the offices and Octroi check-posts and barriers were governed by one set of service rules and their seniority was common. Even, it was found that their transfers and postings were inter-changeable. Therefore, the employees posted on the Octroi Check-posts and barriers were held to be at par with their counterparts posted in the offices, who were enjoying the benefit of Saturday off. Thus, Hon’ble the Apex Court declared that both sets of the employees, i.e. posted in office and posted on field duty, formed one common group and, therefore, held that the employees from whom the work is taken on Saturday/holiday by deputing them on Octroi Check-post and barriers, would be paid extra wages for such period/day, failing which, it would amount to discrimination with the field staff vis-(cid:224)- vis office staff, who otherwise also belong to the same group of employees. In other words, it would have caused different treatment amongst equals.

166. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, referred to the facts discussed in the judgment of Sirhind’s case (supra) and the findings given therein. He further submitted that after giving a specific finding of holding the appellants therein entitled to extra wages for performing duty on ‘Saturdays’, the Hon’ble Apex Court asked them PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 117 to recover the amount by filing the relevant application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal.

167. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, also submitted that in the cases filed by the Clerks, Malis and other Services of the Municipalities, neither there is any such plea raised in the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, nor any such evidence has been brought on record. Instead of referring the factual matrix of each and every cases being represented by him, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, referred to the facts of CWP No. 4088 of 2015, titled as ‘Municipal Corporation, Patiala v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others’, and submitted that in this case, one witness, namely, Gora Lal (MW1), was produced by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, who deposed in specific that the workmen/employees, who were engaged as ‘Mali’, were working in the field since the beginning and the post of field staff is not inter-transferable with office staff. The said witness also clarified that the field staff is also getting extra benefits like washing allowance, shoe allowance, uniform allowance, cycle allowance, etc.

168. While referring to the cases pertaining to the Safai Karamcharis’ and other posts covered under the Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1975, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, submitted that the services of all the employees are governed by these Rules, which have been framed after exercising due care and considering all the conditions/exigencies which the employees need to meet out during the course of service. In this regard, Mr. Soni PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 118 referred to Rule 15 of the aforementioned Rules (already reproduced by this Court in the earlier part of the judgment).

169. In conjunction thereof, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, also referred the Safai Karamchari Rules and submitted that as per Rule 2(g), ‘Service’ means the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, and as per Rule 16 of the Safai Karamchari Rules, the leave of all these employees is governed as per the provisions of Punjab CSR. Rule 17 of the Safai Karamchai Rules also prescribes the holidays and it clearly says that the employee would be entitled for one paid holiday in a week; three national holidays i.e. 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October and four other holidays at the option of the member on any of the festivals specified in Appendix ‘C’. As per Rule 23 of the Safai Karamchari Rules, the members of the Service are required to work for 8 hours in a day and their services can be taken in two sessions i.e. Morning and Evening, as per the weather conditions.

170. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, thus, submitted that in respect of the members of the Service governed under the Safai Karamchari Rules, already due care has been taken by the rule framers, i.e. in respect of working days, holidays, optional leave, working hours, as also the National holidays. As far as the claim of extra wages in lieu of working on Saturdays is concerned, the Safai Karamchari Rules clearly provides one off day as paid holiday in a week. Thus, the members of the Service governed under the Safai Karamchari Rules are not entitled for any five day working week, rather, they are required to work for six days out of total seven in a week, and render 8 hours of service on daily basis. And, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 119 they cannot wriggle out of the provisions of the Rules with which their services are governed, since the time of their appointment with the establishment.

171. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, also referred letter/circular bearing No.6/10/93-6PP 111/20107 dated 03.11.1993 issued by the State of Punjab, which was further circulated in the Municipal Councils/Corporations vide Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2) 74/9775 dated 02.03.1994, vide which it has been clarified that ‘the employees who are working in the field, are entitled only for Sunday holiday’. Referring to para 7 of the order dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court in CWP No. 4088 of 2015, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, specifically pointed out that the aforementioned circular letter dated

02.03.1994 was duly produced and proved in evidence as Ex. M1 before the Industrial Tribunal. Not only this, the Industrial Tribunal in para 13 of its order dated 31.03.2014, also discussed about the contents of Ex. M1, but no finding thereon has been recorded at the time of passing of the order. For ready reference, the contents of para Nos. 7 and 13 of the order dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, while deciding Application No. 450 of 2008, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which was filed by one Dinesh Kumar s/o Devki Nandan, Mali, are reproduced as under:- “7. In order to rebut the evidence of the workman, respondents examined MW1 Sh. Gora Lal Supervisor of the respondent who stated on oath that Director Local Self PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 120 Government is the Head of the Department. The applicant was initially engaged as Mali in the field and since then he is working in the field. One rest is given to the field staff after performing duty for six days in a week. The post of field staff is not inter-transferable with the office staff. The field staff gets the extra benefits of washing allowance, shoe allowance, uniform allowance, Cycle allowance etc. but on the other hand, this benefit is not given to the office staff. The applicant is covered under the Municipal Act. Vide Ex. M1 the separate rules are framed for the field staff. As per relevant page 132 Rule (letter No.?) ANKA(2) 74/97/75 of the Municipal Digest, the applicant is only entitled for one rest in a week that he is availing one rest in a week. The Commissioner of corporation is not competent to amend the rules. It is his demand to give extra wages for Saturdays which is not acceptable to the respondent. As per the rules the applicant is drawing full salary of every month. Nothing is due towards the management. It is undisputed that five days week was allowed vide 13. circular No. 6/10/79-GE-3969 that stipulated “In partial notification of Notification No. 6/10/79-GE(6)/10898, dated the 6th September, 1979, it is hereby notified that all Saturdays of every month instead of second and last Saturdays of each month as earlier notified shall be observed as holidays in Government Offices through out the State of Punjab till further orders. The working hours in these offices shall be from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. half an hour break from 1.30 P.M. to 2.00 P.M.”

172. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, thus, argued that the Industrial Tribunal has grossly erred by not looking into the provisions of the relevant Service Rules, as also the clarification issued by State of Punjab on 03.11.1993, which was further forwarded to its agencies i.e. Municipalities etc. vide Memo. dated 02.03.1994 (Ex. M1). Undoubtedly, such letters have been issued by the State of Punjab keeping in mind true letter and spirit of the Rules, for which they have been framed. Thus, Mr. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 121 Soni prayed for allowing of all the writ petitions filed by the Municipalities.

173. Other than this, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, emphatically raised the question of maintainability of applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, so far as the present set of writ petitions are concerned. While arguing on this issue, Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, submitted that it is an established position of law that an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act would be maintainable only if the workman has a legal right in relation to his claim. He will have to first establish the same and only then a right to file application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act will accrue to him.

174. In sum and substance, the star argument of Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, is that Sirhind’s case (supra) is entirely on a different footing of facts and the employees in the writ petitions filed by the Municipalities have completely failed in establishing any equal right vis-(cid:224)-vis the Clerks and Peons working on the Octroi Check-posts and barriers, whose cases were before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). SHARMA, ARGUMENTS OF MR. ADVOCATE, REPRESENTING THE PUNJAB MANDI BOARD SANJEEV

175. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, submitted applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act were filed by T-mates, Helpers, Pump Operators, Plumbers, Sewerman, Sweepers, Fitters and Coolies, who fall under the wing of ‘Public Health’ and are involved in the maintenance of essential services like Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation work. Their services are required round the clock. Employees PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 122 working on these posts are required to work six days a week. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, also pointed out that some of the categories of the employees are already in receipt of additional benefits, such as free residence, free water and electricity supply, summer and winter uniforms and maintenance allowances. However, no such benefits are available/admissible to the employees, exclusively devoted to the office work.

176. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further submitted that other categories like Survey Khalasi, Electricians, Supervisors, Chowkidars and Junior Engineers work on both sides, i.e. Public Health - Civil and Electrical Side. Junior Engineers work on both the sides of Public Health, i.e. Civil and Electrical, and they have supervisory powers over the other categories and, therefore, not covered within the definition of ‘Workman’ as per the ID Act.

177. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further submitted that there is a complete misjoinder of parties as different set of workmen working in the different capacities like Pump Operator, Helper, Chowkidar, Sewerman, Fitter, Fitter Coolie, T-mate, Plumber etc, had jointly filed the application. In fact, such a joint application is not maintainable because every employee is working in different capacities, for different purposes, under different service conditions and the Rules. Even the nature of duties are different, inasmuch as, some of the duties are of normal routine and some are of utmost exigencies, which may be required at any point of time during the course of the day/week. Therefore, a joint application PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 123 filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID by such workmen is not maintainable.

178. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, also submitted that in the joint application filed by the employees belonging to the different categories, even the facts cannot be examined by the Court so as to find out whether the parameters as discussed and decided in Sirhind’s case (supra) are met out or not, in view of the service conditions of different employees. Thus, argued that, in fact, such joint applications have been moved without understanding the true import and meaning of Sirhind’s case (supra).

179. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, also pointed out that in none of the cases, the services are inter-transferable/inter-changeable. Even, there is no common cadre and seniority. Thus, the principle of law laid in Sirhind’s case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts enumerated in the applications filed by the employees against the Punjab Mandi Board. While stressing more upon the nature of the services to say that the employees in all such categories are whole time worker of the Government, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, refers to the relevant Rule

3.10 of the Punjab CSR. Needless to say, Rule 3.10 has also been referred by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate - Amicus Curiae.

180. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further argued that the employees of Punjab Mandi Board, who have filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act of 1947, belong to the different cadres, having independent seniority in the field area. There is no question of any common seniority of such employees with the office staff. To repel the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 124 demand of the field staff employees, who are respondents in the writ petitions filed by the Punjab Mandi Board, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, argued that so far as work of laying/recarpeting of road is concerned, the activity comes to a standstill for a period of almost six months in one year, i.e. during rainy as well as winter season. Similarly, construction activities are also not carried out during rainy season, whereas during this period, aforesaid categories of employees continue to enjoy full wages. On the other hand, the employees in the office staff shall have to work round the year. In addition to the statutory service benefits, employees in the field staff are in receipt of extra benefits and said fact has even been admitted by one of the witness, namely, Harkamal Singh Gill s/o Harcharan Singh Gill (WW2), when he appeared as witness during the proceeding of recording of evidence in the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

181. By preparing a brief note, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, has forwarded the statement of the said witness (WW2) and for reference, same is reproduced herebelow: “WW2: Harkamal Singh Gill son of Sh. Harcharan Singh Gill aged 52 years residents of VPO Burj Hakiman, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana recalled for his cross examination on S.A. xxxx Sh. R.K. Markan, AR of the respondent. It is correct that I am authorized by any union to give the statement on behalf of Nirbhai Singh and others except A-7, I have no other documents to authorize me to record statement on behalf of 18 other applicants. Supervisor, driver, chowkidar, road roler, helper Junior Engineer and etc. are working in the field and they are considered as field PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 125 is supervisory post. J.E. does staff. It is correct that all the above said petitioners perform their duty in the field. It is correct that all the petitioner are not working in the office. It is correct that extra pay to the above said categories are not paid earlier by the respondent Board. It is correct that the main duty of the supervisor are to supervise the work done by labourer of the contractor or other employees subordinate the work supervisor also works physically. It is correct that the petitioner Gagroop Singh, Ravinder Singh and Saroop Singh are working as junior engineer which measurement of the filed. It is correct that Junior Engineer used to mark the attendance of the supervisor, driver, chowkidar and helper, Leave is recommended by JE, and sanctioned by SDO. J.E. Check/supervise the work of contractor. The extra benefit like fixed LTA Rs.750/- per month is being given to the J.E. for performing field duty. It is correct that supervisors get Rs.250/- as convenience allowance. It is correct that extra special allowance is given to the driver categories @ Rs.750/- per month. It is correct that the uniform for summer and winter were given to the driver by the respondent Board. It is correct that extra benefit/special allowance is not given to the official staff. It is correct that posting of the above said categories Supervisor, driver, chowkidar, road roller, helper Junior Engineer and helper and etc. are not transferable with the employees working in the office. It is correct that the seniority list of the above said categories are separately maintained from the office staff. It is correct that present claim application is filed in the name of Nirbhai Singh and others under the registered one application No.797/2008. It is correct that I along with other co-workers filed CWP No.18644/2002 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court copy of which is Ex.A3 direction in A-3 Director of the reponsed passed order Ex.M1 dated 11.06.2003. This order was sent to all the office bearers. Thereafter we filed CWP No. 16541/2003 in which order A-10 was passed. The respondent Board filed CA 16B/2006 before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court passed order Ex.All. It is correct that Punjab Mandi Board has its own rules for class III and IV employees which is applicable upon us. It is correct that Punjab Mandi Board has its own rules for class III and IV employees which is applicable upon us. It is correct that we have not filed any complaint to the labour inspector, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Secretary to labour department regarding extra wages. It is correct that I and other 18 applicants are demanding extra wages for the first time. I cannot tell the break up of my claim amount. I and co-applicants were working on work charge basis. We were regularized on 05.04.1999. There are no rules of Mandi PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 126 Board. It is correct that the function of the Punjab Mandi Board (civil Wings) and PWD civil wings are similar nature. It is correct that the nature of the duty of field staff and office staff is quite different. It is correct that the notification of 5 days week dated 07.04.1980 applicable for the office staff only and not applicable to field staff. It is correct that I and my co-applicant have received salary for the entire months including Saturday and Sunday. It is incorrect to suggest that I am not entitled extra wages. It is incorrect to suggest that I have filed false affidavit. It is incorrect that respondent has It’s own rules. RO&AC Sd/- Ramesh Kumari Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal, Patiala/16.04.2013” [emphasis added]

182. By explaining all the circumstances as having been recorded hereabove also, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, vehemently submited that there is not an iota of similarity in the facts regarding the working conditions of the employees herein and the employees who were there before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). There is nothing to assume that the service conditions of the office and field staffs are similar or they are similarly situated, thus, in view of the differentiation between the two different set of categories and certain admissions by the witness/employee-WW2, namely, Harkamal Singh Gill, the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act ought to have been dismissed. Therefore, submits that writ petitions filed by the Punjab Mandi Board deserve to be allowed.

183. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, further argued that since there is no award/judgment/order or any kind of decision in favour of the employees, holding their entitlement for claiming of extra wages for working on Saturdays, as an extra working day, even the application PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 127 under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which in fact, has to proceed, as prescribed for execution proceedings, is not maintainable. To strengthen his arguments, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, relied upon the following judgments: i) Judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), titled as ‘Om Parkash Aerry and others v. Union of India and others, (CWP No. 9934 of 2004, decided on 20.07.2004, reported as 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1461 : (2004) 5 SLR 61 (DB) : 2004 (4) SCT 55); ii) Judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), titled as Nagar Council, Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others (LPA No. 1178 of 2015, decided 26.04.2016, reported as 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 10136); and iii) Judgment of Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), titled as Nagar Council, Mandi Gobindgarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, (CWP No. 8344 of 2015, decided on

29.07.2016, reported as Law Finder Doc Id # 796970).

184. No other counsel has addressed the arguments on behalf of the State of Punjab or its agencies like Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation, Mandi Board, Roadways etc. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 128 ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES Arguments by Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate

185. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, and his associates have represented number of employees of different cadres, categories, departments and municipalities. However, during addressing of arguments, instead of adverting to each and every case individually, with a view to avoid repetition, as also to save time, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, opted to advance the arguments as a whole, by citing the factual matrix from certain writ petitions pertaining to different set of employees.

186. First of all, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, referred CWP No. 22328 of 2011, titled as ‘State of Punjab v. Pritam Bhagat and others’, wherein there are total 178 employees of the Punjab Roadways, who were posted/working as Drivers, Conductors, Junior Technicians, Electricians, Carpenter, TG-2, TG-3, Helper, Welder, Mechanic, Tyreman, Blacksmith, Washing Boy, Upholster and Painter etc.. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, submitted that initially, the aforementioned employees filed CWP No. 19853 of 2002, titled as ‘Pritam Bhagat and others v. State of Punjab and others’, wherein they sought extra wages for working six days in a week. While deciding CWP No. 19853 of 2002 on 13.10.2002, this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) held that the right to receive monetary benefits for working on Saturday has already been settled by the Highest Court of the land and in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act of the employees who had worked for Saturdays and Sundays can hardly be refuted (order dated PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 129

13.10.2002, passed in CWP Nos. 19852 & 19853 of 2002, has already been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment).

187. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further submitted that in view of the observation made by this Court in the order dated 13.10.2002, employees moved Application No. 153 of 2003, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, on 12.06.2008 and thereupon, same has been allowed vide order dated 02.08.2011, by holding that the pre-existing right in favour of the employees has already been settled vide decision of the this Court in CWP No. 19853 of 2002. Since, the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, has been allowed keeping in view the observations made by this Court, there would not be any justification in reversing the finding, by allowing the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab and/or its authorities.

188. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further submitted that once, this Court has given a finding regarding the right of the employees to receive monetary benefits that too after the declaration of their rights by Hon’ble the Apex Court, claim of the employees can hardly be refuted and the decision which was inter se parties, has already attained finality.

189. Broadly, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, argued for dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab.

190. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, while arguing for 181 employees in CWP No. 21510 of 2013 (as respondents No. 2 to 182), titled as ‘State of Punjab v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar and others’, submitted that employees, who are parties in the writ petition, are from technical staff, working on the posts of Mechanic, Welder, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 130 Carpenter etc. Earlier, they had filed CWP No. 20205 of 2002, titled as, ‘Issac Mall v. State of Punjab and others’, claiming extra wages for working six days in a week or a five days working week, as given to staff members working in the office. This Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), while disposing of the said writ petition, vide order dated 15.12.2002, observed that the State Government would consider the claim of the employees on its own and then pass an appropriate order, as expeditiously as possible. Court also observed that “if the petitioners have performed their duties on Saturdays and Sundays, then in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, their claim can hardly be refuted. In other words, it appears to us that right of the petitioners stand settled and it is only consequential benefits in terms of money that are being denied by the respondents to the petitioner.”

191. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further submitted that after refusal of the claim by the Departments of the State of Punjab, employees filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the Industrial Tribunal, vide order dated 12.06.2008, by holding that there is an existing right of the employees as has already been settled by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) and also by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, State Government was directed to make payment of the claimed amount within three months.

192. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, then referred CWP No. 9011 of 2013, titled as ‘Municipal Council, Jalalabad v. Presiding Officer, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 131 Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others’, and submitted employees in the said writ petition were/are employed as Pump Operator, Mali, Chowkidar, Sewerman, and Tractor Drivers etc., in the Municipal Council, Jalalabad. At first instance, all these employees had filed CWP No. 7252 of 1996, titled as ‘Sukhdev Raj v. State of Punjab and others’ and same was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2002, in the same terms as in the order dated 15.03.2000, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case(supra). While deciding CWP No. 7252 of 1996, this Court observed in its order dated 07.02.2002 as under: We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and “ with their assistance have gone through the records. We dispose of this petition on the same terms as mentioned in the order dated 15.03.2000 Annexure P-9 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8434 of 1997” Thereafter, the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act has been allowed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, by accepting the claim of the employees for extra wages qua Saturday working. However, the claim was restricted to the preceding three years to the institution of the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. This is how the Municipal Council, Jalalabad, has assailed the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, for granting benefit to the employees for their working on Saturdays in the preceding three years of filing of their respective applications.

193. While defending the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, submitted that once, the writ petition filed by the employees was disposed of in terms of the judgment PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 132 of Hon’ble Apex court in Sirhind’s case (supra), grant of benefit of extra wages by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, cannot be questioned by the State of Punjab and, thus, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.

194. Broadly, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, based his claim on the direction passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in its order dated 07.02.2002 in CWP No. 7252 of 1996 and submits that the right of the employees has already been considered and covered by this Court itself, at par with the employees, who were before Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

195. For defending the claim of the employees, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) and the observation made by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in its order dated 13.02.2002, passed in CWP No.19852 of 2002 (already reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment).

196. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, defended the orders passed by various Industrial Tribunals in favour of the employees, by citing the judgment of Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the case of Commissioner Secretary, Printing and Stationary, Haryana and another v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and another (CWP No. 20865 of 2008, decided on

13.02.2009, reported as 2009 (2) SCT 328 : Law Finder Doc Id # 182783), where in a similar situation, i.e. in view of the direction given in the earlier round of litigation to consider the claim keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in Sirhind’s case (supra), the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 133 decision of the Tribunal passed in the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, was maintained.

197. To argue on the principle of equal treatment, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Niranjan Dass and others v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No. 1539 of 1987, decided on 29.03.2006, reported as 2006 (3) SCT 199 : Law Finder Doc Id # 121050), and referred paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12 thereof.

198. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, further relied on para Nos. 7 and 8 of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Nirbhai Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board and another (CWP No. 16541 of 2003, decided on 19.07.2005, reported as 2005 (6) SLR 286 : 2005 (10) SCT 894 : Law Finder Doc Id # 140174), wherein suspecting discrimination and realising that the employees in the Punjab Mandi Board, working in the Construction and Engineering wing, were working on Saturdays, whereas the other employees, employed in the office of Punjab Mandi Board, were enjoying holiday on Saturdays, the employees of Construction and Engineering Wing, were held entitled for some monetary compensation for working on Saturdays.

199. For strengthening his arguments that the employees cannot be treated differently, Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, cited the judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in the case of Municipal Council, Morinda v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another (CWP No. 2182 of 2014, decided on 28.05.2014, reported as 2014 (15) SCT 766 : Law Finder Doc Id # 626089). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 134 Arguments by Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate

200. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr. Dilshad Singh Gill, Mr. Laxman Choudhry, Advocate and Mr. Lovepreet Kaur, Advocate, represented the respondent - employees in following writ petitions, which were filed by the Punjab Mandi Board:- CWP No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 07209 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur 20564 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot 10472 of 2014 Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur & another 02260 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur 11889 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot 20565 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot 20566 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot 20567 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot 20568 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Jaitu, District Faridkot 10 20571 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Nirbhai Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh & others Nachhatter Singh s/o Ajmer Singh & others Harminder Singh s/o Atma Singh & others Malkit Singh s/o Jagdev Singh & others Varinderjeet Puri s/o Des Raj & others Gurnam Singh s/o Surjeet Singh & others Bharpur Singh s/o Jarnail Singh & others Jasmel Singh s/o Chand Singh & others Balbir Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh & others Gurshwinder Singh s/o Bhola Singh & others

201. While representing the respondents/applicants/employees in the aforementioned writ petitions, Mr. G.S. Bal, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by the Punjab PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 135 Mandi Board against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, in respective cases, allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Further submitted that the orders impugned in the aforementioned writ petitions are liable to be sustained as the issue in question has already attained finality up to Hon’ble the Apex Court.

202. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, argued that the employees / respondents / applicants in the writ petitions, at first instance had approached the Punjab Mandi Board Authorities for payment of extra wages for the duties performed by them on Saturdays. Such a claim was raised on the strength of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). On not paying any heed to the request, employees had to file CWP Nos. 18643 of 2002 (Satpal Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board) and 18644 of 2002 (Nirbhai Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board and another), which were disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 23.11.2002, with a direction to the respondents therein to decide the representations preferred by the employees.

203. The representations filed by the employees were rejected by the Punjab Mandi Board, vide order dated 11.06.2003, which was challenged in the case of Nirbhai Singh and others v. Punjab Mandi Board and another (CWP No. 16541 of 2003, decided on 19.07.2005, reported as 2005 (6) S.L.R. 286 : 2005 (10) SCT 894 : Law Finder Doc Id # 140174).

204. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, submitted that Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), vide PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 136 judgment dated 19.07.2005 in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra), after noticing the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), recorded its finding and observed that a discriminatory treatment is being met out to the employees working in the field, and involved in construction/repair of link roads, buildings for official and residential purposes of the staff etc. through the contractors. Lastly, the Court held that the denial of the benefit to the employees is certainly arbitrary in nature, and liable to be quashed. It was, thus, held that all the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board working for six days in a week, will be entitled to monetary compensation for the working Saturdays. For reference, paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment in Nirbhai’s case (supra), are reproduced here-below: “7. As per the written statement and the reasoning given by the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board while rejecting the representation of the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners have to work even on Saturdays on various projects undertaken by the Board. Punjab Mandi Board carries out various projects throughout the State, which include construction and repair of link roads, building for official and residential purposes of the staff etc. through contractors. It involves intensive labour and construction operations which are required to be continuously supervised by the field staff employed in the Mandi Board. These projects are required to be completed in a time bound schedule. The nature of duties and responsibilities of field staff is qualitatively different from those working in the administrative offices of the Mandi Board. Indisputably, all the petitioners are working the construction and engineering wing of the Mandi Board. They are working on Saturdays, whereas the other employees who are employed in the offices of the Mandi Board are not working on Saturdays and are enjoying holidays.

8. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order Annexure P/5, denying this benefit to the petitioners is certainly arbitrary in nature and deserves to be quashed. All the employees of Punjab Mandi Board, like the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 137 petitioners, who are working for six days in a week would be entitled to monetary compensation for the working Sat(cid:252)rdays by grant of extra wages for each Saturday they have discharged their duties.”

205. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, further submitted that Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 (Punjab Mandi Board v. Nirbhai Singh), filed by the Punjab Mandi Board against the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 19.07.2005 [in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra)], came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court alongwith Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003, titled as Nagar Council, Kapurthala v. Davinder Kumar and others and other connected appeals, which were dismissed on 14.02.2008 [judgment reported as (2012) 10 SCC 280 : Law Finder Doc Id # 404450]. Relevant part of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), is reproduced herebelow: “ Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as we are of the opinion that for establishing their claim that they were entitled 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 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 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 138 the same. to establish In such a proceeding, undisputedly the appellants shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the Industrial Court. We, therefore, do not find any these appeals. The appeals are dismissed. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, these appeals are disposed of.” Thus, Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, submits that in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), granting opportunity to employees to establish their claim as per the Sirhind’s case (supra), the benefit had been extended by awarding extra wages for Saturdays to the respondent- employees herein, in the writ petitions filed by the Punjab Mandi Board. Once, the appeal of the Punjab Mandi Board against the Division Bench judgment dated 19.07.2005, of this Court in Nirhbai’s case (supra), has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court without causing any interference in favour of the respondents / applicants / employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, there will be no justification for setting aside the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunals in the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, by virtue of dismissal of the Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 (supra) and other connected appeals, vide judgment dated 14.02.2008, passed in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), right of extra wages for working on Saturdays has been confirmed in favour of the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, who are respondents in the aforementioned ten writ petitions.

206. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, also argued that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) has PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 139 attainted finality and the Punjab Mandi Board is bound to follow the observations made in the judgment dated 19.07.2005, passed in the case of Nirbhai Singh (supra). As noticed hereabove also, even the appeal filed against the said judgment has already been dismissed. Thus, the judgment deciding the personal rights of the parties are to be considered judgment in personam and worth to be executed completely by taking it to the logical conclusion vis-(cid:224)-vis the right of extra wages. And, even if the direction in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra) is claimed to be wrong, once it has attained finality, the Punjab Mandi Board is bound to abide by the said dictum in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association, (2006) 8 SCC 662 : 2007 (1) RSJ 111. Therefore, there cannot be any other interpretation for the purpose of disturbing the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunals through orders, which have been impugned before this Court.

207. On hearing Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, this Court raised a straight query to him that in case, the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra) are accepted qua the employees, who are party before this Court only, would it not cause discrimination to those who never came before this Court or qua whom there is no judicial findings, to which Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, responded by submitting that it is a well settled proposition of law that “there is no relief for fence sitters”. To strengthen his argument, he relied upon the judgments of Single Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in Santokh PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 140 Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2016) 4 SCT 240 and Harpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 21560 of 2012, decided on 31.08.2015 : Docid # IndiaLawLib/ 1004538), and stated that relief may not be available to the fence sitters but to the litigants, who are aware of their rights and those who have approached to the Court, cannot be deprived of their rights.

208. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, however, could not address any substantial argument showing the similarity in facts and substance of the claim of respondent - employees of the Punjab Mandi Board vis-(cid:224)-vis the facts and the claim raised by the employees of field staff, who were appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

209. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, was also unable to satisfy this Court that once, the Apex Court modified the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai’s case (supra) by observing that the right of the employees can be raised through the application filed by them under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and every defence has been left open for the employer/Punjab Mandi Board/State of Punjab in such proceedings, how one can claim or assert that the Division Bench judgment in Nirbhai’s case (supra), is a final verdict. Arguments by Mr. Virender Kumar Shukla, Advocate

210. Mr. Virender Kumar Shukla, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent –employees in CWP Nos. 11460, 16034, 16031 of 2013, 16015, 16945, 11418, 16944, and 13170, all of 2013, which have been filed by the State of Punjab or Director, State Transport Punjab. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 141

211. Mr. Virender Kumar Shukla, Advocate, submitted that in all the aforementioned writ petitions, orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in the applications filed by the employees / respondents / applicants under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have been challenged.

212. Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate further submitted that the respondents / employees / applicants were posted in the Department of Roadways in the State of Punjab, as Drivers, Conductors or Sub Inspectors etc. and had claimed extra wages for performing duty during Saturdays and other holidays, primarily on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). Further submitted that such employees have been meted with discrimination vis- (cid:224)-vis other employees of the said department, who are posted in the offices and are enjoying five working days in a week, as the duties assigned to the Drivers, Conductors, Sub Inspectors etc. is in the field area. But, they do not have any benefits for serving the Transport Department of State of Punjab during the course of Saturday or even the holidays.

213. Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate, briefly submitted that once the right has been created for everyone by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), there is no occasion for disturbing the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s) in favour of the respective employees, such as Conductors, Drivers and Sub Inspectors etc., allowing of their applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, merely on technical aspects. Thus, the writ petitions filed by the Transport Department Punjab/State of Punjab are required to be dismissed. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 142

214. However, on being confronted by this Court as to how the employees/applicants have established before the concerned Industrial Tribunal that they have either any pre-existing right to claim extra wages or their conditions of service are akin to the field staff employees serving in the Octroi Department, who claimed extra wages for Saturdays in Sirhind’s case (supra), Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate, could not give any convincing response to satisfy the conscious of this Court, so as to consider the claim of the respondent employees herein, on the basis of the underlined principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). Arguments by Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate

215. Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, defended the cases of the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 06204, 06235, 06245, 06255 & 06725 of 2015; for respondent No(s). 2 in CWP Nos. 19414 & 19415 of 2014, 16982 of 2016, and 28835 of 2017; for respondent No(s). 2 to 4 in CWP No. 20708 of 2014; and for respondent No(s). 2 to 6 in CWP No. 19429 of 2014.

216. While defending the right of the employees to get extra wages qua their working on Saturdays in the field area, Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, argued that right of the employees stand already affirmed and established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). Thus, their entitlement for starting of the recovery process through applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is beyond the scope of scrutiny, rather, it requires to be affirmed in view of the observations made in Sirhind’s case (supra). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 143 Further submitted that rather, such a right is indefeasible and always existed in favour of the employees. It is only the means of recovery which is being questioned by the State of Punjab or its agencies by way of the writ petitions, before this Court.

217. Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, further submitted that once, the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra) has already affirmed the right of the employees, rightly or wrongly, the monetary relief is to be released immediately by the State Agencies without any delay. Thus, prays for the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by various Municipalities, different Departments of the State of Punjab, as well as respective Boards, by maintaining the legality of the applications filed by the employees, as already guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). BROAD ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AMICUS CURIAE & THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY RESPECTIVE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

218. There appears to be no dispute amongst the parties before this Court that the claim made by the employees, i.e. for extra wages in regard to the working on Saturdays/holidays, has to be examined keeping in mind as to whether there is already a pre-existing determination of said claim in favour of the agitating employees or not, before starting the proceedings of recovery under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which provision of law, in fact, is akin to the execution proceedings in pursuance to some money decree. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 144

219. Undoubtedly, in view of the judgments cited by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate - Amicus Curiae, while addressing his submissions, consistent interpretation of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for more than six decades, is that the application for recovery of the money for which an applicant is entitled, is maintainable, only if, such a right has already been adjudicated prior to the filing of the application. In other words, Section 33C(2) of the ID Act of 1947 is not meant for the purpose of determination of the right/entitlement of an applicant/employee ‘for the first time’, in regard to the money recoverable or to be paid to him by the employer. Learned Counsel for both the sides, i.e. employer and the employees, are ad idem to the proposition of law as has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. (supra), and thereafter followed in the subsequent judgments in the cases of Ganesh Razak (supra), Kankuben (supra), and Bombay Chemical India Ltd. (supra). Thus, it can be safely concluded from the submissions advanced by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Amicus Curiae, which have been reiterated by Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, that Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is only for the purpose of execution of a pre-determined and existing right.

220. Now this Court proceeds to examine as to whether the claim of the employees regarding extra wages in lieu of duty performed on Saturdays, being posted in the field area, has already been determined by any Authority/Forum/Judicial Forum/Commission or Court etc.

221. This Court finds that the employees who were posted and working outside the office, started assuming their right of extra wages for PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 145 Saturdays and the holidays, only after the adjudication of the issue by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). In the said case, two sets of employees were before the Court, i.e. – (i) Employees, who were deputed for office working and were enjoying the Saturdays and Sundays as completely ‘off day’; and (ii) Employees of the same department deputed on official duties in the field area, and also required to attend such duties on Saturdays or holidays, other than the desk work in the office, but were not paid any extra wages in lieu thereof. In Sirhind’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court found that the duties of these two sets of employees are inter-changeable because any employee working in the office and enjoying two complete ‘off days’, i.e. Saturdays and Sundays, at the time of need or exigencies of Service, could be deputed for the field duty also, even on Saturdays and holidays. It was also concluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there is a common seniority list of both sets of the employees and they are all governed by one set of Service Rules. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court firmly concluded that “the equals cannot be treated differently within one category of equals.” Therefore, impliedly, all of the employees were found to enjoy ‘two off days’ per week. But in the case of set of the employees, who have been deputed in the field areas, during Saturdays or holidays, the Hon’ble Apex Court held them entitled for ‘extra wages’ for such PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 146 days, by applying the ‘principle of equality’, enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, so as to avoid any kind of discriminatory treatment with one set of employees. Thus, it was only after holding their entitlement, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted them liberty to initiate recovery process through the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

222. Unfortunately, without understanding the very genesis of the principle of law discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), employees working in various Department, Boards and Municipalities in the State of Punjab, started assuming that the principle of law laid down in Sirhind’s case (supra) is universal and applicable for every employee, whosoever is posted on field duty outside the office. Thereupon, claims were raised before the Government Authorities and also by filing writ petitions before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court).

223. Probably, due to lack of proper assistance in regard to the background of the Sirhind’s case (supra), Division Bench of this Court while dealing with CWP Nos. 19852 and 19853 of 2002, vide its order dated 13.12.2002, considered the petitioners/employees therein at par with the employees in Sirhind’s case (supra), and afforded them liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, by observing that the right to receive the monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest Court of the land.

224. It is on that basis, the employees throughout the State of Punjab serving with the Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 147 Punjab Mandi Board, Punjab Transport Department, Health Department, Sanitary Department etc., started claiming extra wages for working on Saturdays, without even pleading or assisting the Court (High Court and Labour Court), whether their right is on equal footing or not vis-(cid:224)-vis the employees in the Sirhind’s case (supra). In some of the cases, applications filed by the employees have been accepted by the Court without examining the facts and circumstances, as has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). However, in majority of the orders, there is not an iota of discussion as to whether the factors, which have been taken note of, by the Hon’ble Apex Court i.e. creating parity, exist or not. Against all such orders, the concerned employer(s) has filed number of writ petitions, which are pending adjudication before this Court.

225. Similarly, some of the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunals holding that there is no pre-existing right and, therefore, the claim raised through the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is not maintainable before it. In all such cases, the employees belonging to respective departments, have filed the writ petitions before this Court.

226. Countering the submissions addressed by Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate-Amicus Curiae, as well as other counsel representing the employer(s), Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, relied upon the Division Bench judgment, dated 19.07.2005, of this Court in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra) and submitted that while deciding the said case, Hon’ble Division Bench noticed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 148 Sirhind’s case (supra) and, thereafter, held the employees to be entitled for the same relief. Mr. Bal also argued that the judgment dated

19.07.2005, passed in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra), has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court because the appeal filed by the Punjab Mandi Board/employer has been dismissed.

227. This Court does not agree with the afore-noted contention of Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, for more than one reasons because in the judgment dated 14.09.2008, passed in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), alongwith which the appeal filed by the Punjab Mandi Board (being Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006), was dismissed, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted opportunity to both sides, i.e. the employees and the employer, for addressing their respective contentions during the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court. It has also been observed that workmen must establish their legal right in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Thus, it is clear that while dismissing Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 alongwith other connected appeals, vide judgment dated 14.09.2008, in the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has even given chance to the employees to establish their right before the Labour Court by filing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

228. Broadly speaking, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh’s case and the order dated 14.02.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2006 are to be read in conjunction. Thereafter, the logical conclusion/meaning has to be drawn by reading the two together. Looking at the order dated 14.02.2008 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 149 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in no manner it can be concluded that the order passed in the Nirbhai Singh’s case has attained finality so as to say that employees would not be required to establish their right before the Labour Court during the proceedings under Section 33 C (2) of the Act of 1947. The other judgments cited by Mr. G.S. Bal, Sr. Advocate would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, thus, are ignored for the time being.

229. This Court has also gone through the arguments and the judgments relied upon by Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, representing the employees. His attempt to defend the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, qua the employees who are being represented by him, is not satisfying much. In none of the judgments, the basis of reaching to the conclusion by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), i.e. principle of ‘equality to avoid discrimination amongst equals’, as covered under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, has ever been discussed in its true perspective. Therefore, after examining all the judgments and hearing the submissions addressed from all the sides, this Court is of the view that until an employee proves himself to be completely covered at par with the facts and circumstances enumerated in Sirhind’s case (supra), it cannot be concluded that the right qua ‘extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays’ has already been determined in favour of such employees.

230. Not only this, the employees have to first plead in specific in the application and then to prove with the evidence, so as to reach to the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 150 conclusion that the employees of the office staff of any of the departments are the same, who can be deputed in the field area i.e. outside the office even on Saturdays/holidays. Thus, in such proceedings, they have to prove that by virtue of implication of the statutory service rules, nature of the service, any other standing orders, instructions or guidelines issued by the competent authority, they form one unit, like the one that has been found by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

231. In the absence of any such pleading and evidence, it would not be possible for any Court to declare that any discrimination has been done with different employees within one establishment, who otherwise form one class. In the cases where applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have been allowed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, not even the applicable statutory rules governing the conditions of services of the employees have either been brought on record or looked into, before reaching to similar conclusion, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhinds case (supra). Probably, such applications have been allowed only with the assumption that the rights and entitlement of extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays, in respect of all the employees working in the field area, have already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). It has further been assumed that the opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), is a judgment in ‘rem’, thus is applicable to all the employees throughout the State.

232. Some of the statutory provisions, such as Fire Brigade Rules and the Standing Orders formulated thereunder for the members of the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 151 Fire Brigade; Safai Karamchari Rules which are applicable to the members of the Service to which they are applicable; various provisions of the Transport Workers Act, in regard to certain categories of employees have already been noticed and discussed by this Court in the earlier part of this judgment. Specific provisions under the Safai Karamchari Rules are there, which tells that the members of the Service governed by said rules, shall be required to work for six days in a week. Similarly, while giving due consideration and weightage to the arduous nature of duties of the members of the Fire Brigade, special provisions have been made to compensate them by allowing extra special leaves and various other incentives, which are not admissible to the employees of other services. In the same way, under the Transport Workers Act, specific provisions have been made only to benefit the Motor Transport Workers.

233. Otherwise also, there are certain categories of services such as Health, Fire Brigade and Civil, Public and Electrical wings of the Public Works Department etc., where the requirement of such services can arise at any point of time during the week. There appears to be no justification in saying that services of a particular employee would not be required for the department of Public Health, electricity or Fire Brigade on Saturday or other holidays.

234. After noticing the factual and legal background right from the time of the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), the clear position before this Court is that until the employee of the field staff forms a common group of service with equal treatment of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 152 rules and circumstances applicable to the office staff, employee cannot claim for extra wages for sixth working day i.e. Saturday or else, there should be a specific provision in the Rules to pay such extra wages to such an employee in lieu of his working on Saturday/holiday.

235. After the whole discussion made here-in-above, it can be finally concluded that either the factual position in the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, be at par with the principle of law and facts as in the case of Sirhind (supra) or there should already be a pre-existing order/rule/notification in that regard to say that the employees are entitled for extra wages for the ‘off day’. In the absence of any such situation, available on record, any employee from the field staff would not be entitled to say that he is required to work only for five days in a week. Thus, the case of every employee has to pass through the test of the Sirhind’s case (supra), so that the employee may claim his right or entitlement for extra wages for working on Saturdays or other off days. FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE WRIT PETITIONS; ACCORDING TO THE BLOCKS / CATEGORIES FORMED BY THIS COURT

236. After recording final conclusion in the last para, this Court is satisfied that the stage is now set to analyse the writ petitions, according to the blocks/categories of cases, which have already been made by this Court after undertaking the exercise of scrutiny and segregation of all the 511 writ petitions. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 153 Block/Category of Fire Brigade [Annexure: ‘B’, Total 127 cases, Sr. Nos. 1 to 127]

237. Annexure ‘B’ contains the details and other particulars of 127 civil writ petitions. Out of which, petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 have been filed by the employees of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, challenging the common order dated 06.09.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, whereby total 67 applications were decided by the Industrial Tribunal. Remaining petitions i.e. from Sr. Nos. 53 to 127, have been filed by the employer - Municipalities, i.e. Municipal Corporation Patiala (Sr. Nos. 53 to 95); Municipal Council Sangrur (Sr. Nos. 96 to 103); Municipal Corporation Ludhiana (Sr. Nos. 104 to 107); Municipal Corporation Moga (Sr. Nos. 108 to 112); Municipal Council Rajpura (Sr. Nos. 113 to 114); Municipal Council Fatehgarh Sahib (Sr. No. 115); Municipal Council Sri Muktsar Sahib (Sr. No. 116), Municipal Council Kotakpura (Sr No. 117 to 119); Nagar Council Kotakpura (Sr. No. 120); Municipal Corporation SAS Nagar (Sr. Nos. 121 and 122); Municipal Council Derabassi (Sr. Nos. 123 to 126); and Municipal Council Malerkotla (Sr. No. 127). Factual matrix of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 27 of Annexure ‘B’:

238. As already noticed above, 52 writ petitions have been filed by the employees/workmen, who are/were employed in the Department of Fire Brigade Services, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar.

239. It seems that having placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), and claiming that PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 154 it has been held in the said judgment that the employees who have worked on Saturdays, whereas their colleagues enjoyed holiday, are entitled for extra wages for working on Saturday, all the employees in these 52 writ petitions, approached the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking determination of the amount of wages and payment thereof. Such applications were initially filed in the year 2008, which were clubbed together. But in the year 2013, the authorized representative of the applicants therein withdrew the applications with a statement that similar set of employees who were working in the Fire Brigade Department of Municipal Council, Sangrur, filed applications before the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, which were decided on 27.07.2012, in favour of the workmen and whatsoever the final result of the said controversy would be, further legal remedy will be availed by the petitioners herein.

240. Further claiming that in the case of employees of the Municipal Council, Sangrur, the order dated 27.07.2012, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, has been implemented by making payment to the staff posted at Fire Brigade Department, Municipal Council, Sangrur, for working on Saturday, therefore, the said applicants moved fresh applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, for determination of the amount for working on Saturdays, for the last three years from the date of previous applications.

241. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, before the Tribunal, besides taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, suppression of true and material PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 155 facts, estoppels and cause of action etc., it was pleaded that the applicants (petitioners herein in 52 writ petitions) have got no pre-adjudged and pre- existing right in their favour to seek the relief as claimed by them in the applications. Further, it is pleaded that as per terms and conditions of appointment, rules and standing orders of the government, as well as judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the applicants are not entitled for any relief. At no point of time, they had ever worked more than their actual duty, as required under the service rules applicable to them. It is specifically pleaded that under Para No. 20 of the Standing Orders, all the members of the Fire Brigade Staff shall be entitled for 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave, as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of gazetted holidays, keeping in view the peculiar nature of their duties. Such special casual leaves are added to individual’s casual leave account. Moreover, one day weekly off is allowed to all the Fire Brigade employees on rotation basis. Denying of causing any discrimination, the relief claimed by the applicants/petitioner has been denied.

242. No replication was filed and on the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in Application No. 15 of 2014, titled as “Anil Luthra v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and another”, with which the remaining applications were clubbed together:- “1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed for? OPA.

2. Whether the application is liable to be dismissed? OPR.

3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 156

4. Whether the applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Tribunal” OPR.

5. Whether the applicant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present application? OPR.

6. Whether the applicant has no cause of action to file the present application? OPR.

7. Whether the application is an abuse of the process of law? OPR.

8. Relief.”

243. In support of the claim, the applicants themselves appeared in the witness box and tendered their respective affidavits along with documents, as detailed in Para No. 5 of the impugned order, dated

06.09.2016, passed by the Tribunal.

244. Even in the cross-examination, applicants have admitted that they have been given special casual leave for 25 days every year on account of the work done by them in the Fire Brigade department. Further admitted that they have been getting one day weekly rest also.

245. Other than this, Raj Kumar, Clerk, from the office of Nagar Council, Sangrur, appeared as AW66, and produced the summoned record i.e. copy of judgment Ex. A71 and document Ex. A72, containing other record and proved that Nagar Council, Sangrur has made the payment to the workers regarding the work done by them on Saturdays. However, in cross-examination, he denied knowledge about issuance of any directions by the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, to the Municipal Councils, with regard to the making of payment to the workers for working on Saturdays. He also denied of having any knowledge that PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 157 whether the aforesaid payment was made on the basis of judgment Ex. A71 or any other direction of High Court or Supreme Court. He also could not specify that how much amount was paid to the workers at Sangrur.

246. On behalf of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Kashmir Singh, A.D.F.O., Fire Brigade, appeared as RW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A, reiterating the stand already taken in the written statement. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that special casual leave of 25 days is provided to the applicant/petitioners against Gazetted holidays in a year, and there are no special casual leaves for working on Saturdays. Further, he admitted that employees of other departments such as House Tax Department and Estate Office, who perform duty in the field, are enjoying the holidays of Saturdays. Although, he admitted the fact of performing duty on Saturdays by the applicants/petitioners, but he categorically denied the suggestion that they have been discriminated by not giving them salary in lieu of the work done on Saturdays.

247. After discussing the entire evidence led by respective parties, and by placing reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in the case of Nagar Council, Samrala v. Ram Sanjeevan and others, LPA No. 1178 of 2015 (O&M), decided on 26.04.2016, which was tendered by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, the Tribunal has held that the field staff cannot seek parity with the office staff and they are not entitled to the amount claimed. Accordingly, dismissed all the applications. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 158 Factual matrix of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure ‘B’)

248. It has been noticed that the concerned employees, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure ‘B’, being members of the Fire Brigade, also filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. However, the claim made and the relief sought by them, is slightly different than others.

249. In these cases, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, has filed the writ petitions for setting aside of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, whereby respective employees have been granted compensation for working on Saturdays and also overtime for 4 hours per day alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, for the period in question in each case.

250. In these cases, the employees, were then working as members of the Fire Brigade in the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and required to work for 8 hours in a day with the entitlement of weekly off/rest. However, they were directed to work regularly seven days in a week without any break or rest, that too for twelve hours in a day instead of eight hours. In this manner, the employer had taken four hours extra duty from them on daily basis. In their applications, the concerned employees claimed that they were held entitled to receive the overtime wages, for working on weekly off/rest days and double of the wages for working extra four hours daily, and wages were paid to them as over-time upto 13.08.2007, but thereafter, same was stopped. They continuously worked up-till PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 159 September 2009 and represented to the authorities also for payment of such wages/over-time, but in vain.

251. Thereupon the Employees’ Union filed CWP No. 1221 of 2010 (Municipal Fire Brigade Employees Union, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab & others), claiming benefit of ‘over-time’, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice dated 26.02.2009.

252. The claim of ‘over-time’ of the Employees Union was rejected by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, vide order dated

22.04.2010, and therefore, CWP No. 13137 of 2011 (Jugraj Singh & others v. State of Punjab), challenging the order dated 22.04.2010, was filed in this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), but the same was disposed of on being withdrawn, vide order dated 02.08.2011, with liberty to avail alternative remedy under the law.

253. Employees/respondents these writ petitions again represented to the authorities to grant ‘over-time’ for making them to work for 12 hours in a day. But no heed was paid.

254. With the aforementioned averments, applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, were filed before Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, for grant of benefit of over-time wages for working on weekly off/rest days from July, 2007 to September, 2009, and for double the wages for working four hours overtime in a day from 14.08.2007 onwards.

255. While adducing evidence, applicants in their affidavits, did not make a whisper about the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case or any claim for extra wages for Saturday/holiday working. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 160

256. After noticing the entire matrix and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 19518 of 2002 (Ram Karan & others v. State of Punjab & others), dated 10.12.2002, as well as the law laid down in Sirhind’s case, the Tribunal allowed the applicants claim for ‘over-time’, by concluding that ‘…the applicant is granted compensation for weekly off/rest days he has worked from July, 2007 to September, 2009 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. October, 2009 till the date of realization.’ Factual matrix of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 53 to 103 & 108 to 127 of Annexure ‘B’)

257. In most of the cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 53 to 103, and 108 to 127, the employees have filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, on the strength of orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the writ petitions, which were initially filed by them, such as CWP No. 15831 of 2002 (Isher Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others); CWP No. 20433 of 2002 (Sudershan Jain & others v. State of Punjab & others); CWP No. 19027 of 2002 (Gurcharan Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others); and CWP No. 17042 of 2002 (Jaswinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others). It was also contended before the Industrial Tribunal that even the appeals preferred against the judgment/orders passed in the said cases, were dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the respective Industrial Tribunals allowed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

258. There cannot be any doubt that services under the Fire Brigade Wing are essential by character and employment of the members PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 161 of the Fire Brigade is governed by Fire Brigade Rules (supra) as well as general Standing Orders framed thereunder, and the relevant provisions in this regard have already been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment.

259. After reading of the Standing Orders framed under the provisions of the Fire Brigade Rules (supra), it is emphatically clear that number of extra incentives and service benefits are available to the members of the Fire Brigade. This includes - supply of uniforms at the cost of the Municipality; payment of Uniform Upkeep Allowance; providing of rent free accommodation within the fire station premises or as near to the fire station as possible and if not provided in lieu thereof, house rent at the rates admissible to other members of Government; free water and free electricity; entitlement of 25 days special casual leave in addition to the casual leave as admissible to other government employees, in lieu of the gazetted holidays and Saturdays/second Saturday which they do not avail in view of the peculiar nature of their duty; provisioning for outdoor games, indoor games, newspapers, magazines and other periodicals of interest relating to fire service; and risk allowance. The afore-noted benefits are not admissible to other employees who are working in other Municipal Services.

260. In this manner, the members of the Fire Brigade working under the control of the Municipalities have already been compensated adequately, keeping in view the rigorous and arduous nature of their duty, which requires to be performed 24 x 7. Thus, such employees cannot allege any sort of discrimination, inasmuch as, the benefits which are PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 162 attached to their Service and are not available to those who are working in offices and enjoy Saturdays as off-days. Therefore, the cases of members of the Fire Brigade stand on an altogether different footing.

261. When the cases of the Fire Brigade are tested on the touchstone of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), it is found by this Court that there is no comparison between two sets of employees. There is not even a single evidence to show that the conditions of service of the members of Fire Brigade are one and the same as are applicable to those employees of the Municipalities, who enjoy Saturdays as a ‘off-days’. It is neither the case of the members of the Fire Brigade employees that there is a common seniority amongst them, vis-(cid:224)- vis other set/group of employees, or their ‘Service’ is inter-changeable, i.e. they can be deputed in the offices also. Once, these two broad parameters are not fulfilled, this Court fails to understand how the members of the Fire Brigade can equate themselves at par with the employees of the Octroi, who were before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

262. Further, while deciding the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, it has been noticed by the respective Industrial Tribunals that the employees have claimed extra wages for working on Saturdays by basing their claim on the letter dated 07.04.1980 (supra), issued by the Punjab Government, whereby it was declared that all the offices in the Punjab Government shall adopt the practice of five working days a week. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 163 On said account, it would be necessary for this Court to notice Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775 dated 02.03.1994, which was circulated to the Municipalities, in continuation of letter No. 6/10/6PP 111/20107, dated 03.11.1993, wherein it has been explicitly clarified that employees working in the field, were entitled for only Sunday holiday and not for two holidays in a week. Conjoint reading of the notification dated 07.04.1980 and subsequent Memo./letter dated 02.03.1994 (ibid) would mean that at one point of time i.e. in the year 1980, State of Punjab declared five days as working in a week in its Public Offices, without realizing that certain employees were deployed in the field area also. However, subsequent thereto, a clarificatory circular was issued by the Punjab State Government, making it clear that the field staff would be entitled only for one day as holiday in a week.

263. Other than this, it is also relevant to notice that in all the 127 writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 127 of Annexure ‘B’, respective applicants have claimed the extra wages for working on Saturday/holiday for having worked for such days, much after the issuance of letter dated

02.03.1994 (supra) whereby, Punjab Government had already made it clear that field staff would be entitled only for one holiday in a week. This position is fortified from Annexure ‘B’, wherein the period for which extra wages claimed has been shown. The extra wages by all the employees are claimed from the year 1999 and thereafter. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 164 In fact, it is neither the pleaded case or argued by the employees before this Court that the letter dated 02.03.1994 has ever been challenged or ever withdrawn by the Government at any later stage.

264. Further, it is also not the pleaded case that the employees herein are not paid monthly salary and are rather paid the wages for the days on which they have actually performed their duty in the field areas. In other words, admitted position is that every such employee/applicant is already getting monthly salary and still on the basis of observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) want some extra wages for working on Saturdays in the shape of compensation. Such a mindset/plea would not be of any help to the employees belonging to the Fire Brigade, because the nature of duty of such employees is based on unforeseen events and for practical purposes, such employees are supposed to be ready for being deputed for same field duty to cater to any exigency that may arise in a given situation, i.e. to work as fire extinguisher in the manner they are deployed to perform.

265. Even, the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, while deciding applications, which are subject matter of writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 of Annexure ‘B’, has also noticed the decision in Nagar Council, Samrala’s case (supra) after the same being tendered by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, and the applications have been accordingly dismissed.

266. When the facts of the cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure ‘B’ are examined, it comes out that there, members of the Fire Brigade were agitating their claim for grant of ‘over-time’ for PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 165 performing of four hours extra duty. According to them, the said benefit was extended to them uptil a certain period, but was stopped thereafter. Raising the grievance, the Employees’ Union approached this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) by way of CWP No. 1221 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, to decide the legal notice. Thereafter, by passing a specific order dated 22.04.2010 (Annexure P-1 attached with CWP No. 16319 of 2018), said claim of ‘over-time’ was rejected. Though the said order was assailed in CWP No. 13137 of 2011, but the same was withdrawn by the petitioners therein, with liberty to avail alternative remedy under law. In this way, the order dated 22.04.2010, passed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, qua claim of the members of the Fire Brigade, working under its control, for grant of ‘over-time’ as compensation, attained finality. However, while allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, it seems that the Tribunal despite noticing the entire facts, assumed and presumed that the claim of the employees before it, was for extra wages for working on Saturdays and holidays. And, by misreading of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), allowed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

267. While dealing with these cases, i.e. mentioned at Sr. Nos. 104 to 107 of Annexure ‘B’, this Court is conscious about the various provisions of the Punjab CSR, which have already been referred in detail and realised that there are specific provisions for grant of compensatory allowance; Honorarium; and special pay. Provisions of the Punjab CSR PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 166 also prescribe the conditions and circumstances, under which these can be granted to the employees.

268. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that in the Punjab CSR, neither there is any definition defining the meaning of words ‘extra wages’ nor there exists any specific rule for grant or payment of such ‘extra wages’ to the employees. As per the express provisions of the Punjab CSR, for any extra ordinary duty or special work done by the employees, the competent authority can grant or extend the benefit of compensatory allowance, honorarium and special pay, in addition to their ‘pay’. Nothing has been argued or shown to this Court that after rejection of the claim or otherwise, the employees have ever agitated their claim for grant of aforementioned monetary benefits, i.e. in the nature of compensatory allowance or honorarium or special pay in lieu of the duty performed by them on Saturdays/holidays. Rather, their sole claim is for payment of ‘extra wages’ for working on Saturdays, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

269. Moreover, Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, also empowers the Government to assign tasks to its employees as deemed necessary by the appropriate authority, without the need for additional compensation. Thus, the Government retains the discretion to utilize the employees’ time, as it deems fit within the framework of their duties.

270. Broadly speaking, since the employees/applicants, who failed in establishing their right for extra wages for Saturday working, vis-(cid:224)-vis the employees who succeeded before Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), wherein, set of employees deputed in the field area and the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 167 set of employees deputed in the office of the Octroi Department are found to perform interchangeable duties and also being governed by the same set of rules by forming a common seniority, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the members of the Fire Brigade, claiming themselves to be deployed for field duty, are entitled for extra wages for Saturdays/holiday working. Thus, the claim raised by them through the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is hereby rejected.

271. Accordingly, the writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 of Annexure ‘B’ are dismissed and the writ petitions from Serial Nos. 53 to 127 of Annexure ‘B’, filed by respective Municipalities are hereby allowed. Resultantly, all the applications filed by the employees being worthless, stand dismissed. Block/Category of Octroi & Octroi + Fire Brigade [Annexure: ‘C’, Total 3 cases, Sr. Nos. 128 to 130]

272. In this block/category of writ petitions, there are three cases, which have been detailed at Annexure ‘C’ to this judgment, i.e. Sr. Nos. 128 to 130. CWP No. 11624 of 2015

273. Case mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure ‘C’ (CWP No. 11624 of 2015), has been filed by the Municipal Council, Dera Bassi, against the common order dated 13.05.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, vide which while deciding 29 applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, claim of the employees working in the Octroi wing of the Municipal Council, Dera Bassi, has been allowed in PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 168 terms of the Division Bench judgment, dated 10.10.2002, passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in CWP No. 16326 of 2002 (Swaran Singh Walia and others v. State of Punjab and others), as well as that of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). In this case, various employees claimed the benefit of working on Saturday, in terms of Sirhind’s case (supra), on the ground that they were also working in the Octroi wing of the Municipal Council, Dera Bassi. Having gone through the factual particulars, as detailed in CWP No. 11624 of 2015, there appears to be no dispute that the applicants, who moved applications (as per the details mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure ‘C’), were/are working the Octroi Department/Wing on different posts such as Peon, Clerk, Sweeper, Sanitary Inspector, Plumber, Helper, Junior Assistant, and Restorer etc. CWP No. 14253 of 2002

274. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14253 of 2002 (mentioned at Serial No. 129 of Annexure ‘C’) has been filed by 27 petitioners. As per averment made in para 2 of the writ petition, they were Class III and Class IV employees and working on the posts of Octroi Clerks, Junior Assistant, Sewerman, Fireman and Drivers etc., in the Nagar Council, Kapurthala. They filed the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to extend the petitioners benefits in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). It has further been prayed that respondents be also directed to grant the petitioners benefits of pay/wages PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 169 for each of the Saturday and other gazetted holidays on which they worked while their colleagues in the offices were permitted to enjoy them as holidays, alongwith all consequential benefits.

275. As per own showing, at the time of filing of the writ petition, some of the petitioners were working in the Octroi wing as Octroi Clerks/Junior Assistant/Inspector (e.g. petitioner Nos. 1 to 12 and 25), whereas some of them were members of the Fire Brigade (e.g. petitioner Nos. 13 to 24). No service particulars of petitioner Nos. 26 and 27 are forthcoming.

276. Further, case of the petitioners in CWP No. 14253 of 2002, is that some of the employees of Nagar Council, Kapurthala, were working in the fields/Octroi Check Posts, whereas other set of employees were working in the offices. It has been claimed by the petitioners that terms and conditions of appointment, and scale of pay of both sets of employees are same. The petitioners herein have espoused their case by pleading that when their counter-parts and other categories of Class-III and Class-IV employees are made to work in the office side, they enjoy the benefit of five days week with every Saturday and Sunday as holidays, besides other gazetted holidays. Contrary to that, the petitioners being posted in the field/Octroi barriers were made to work for six days in a week. It is alleged that Nagar Council had not promulgated any bye-laws where the working conditions of the staff members/petitioners were uniformly prescribed to be six days in a week. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that two sets of officials being equal, cannot be seen differently, rather they are entitled for equal treatment in the matter of holidays or PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 170 wages for the extra work done by them, in the terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). To strengthen their case, the petitioners also placed reliance on two orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the cases of Angrez Singh, Octroi Clerk and 64 others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 15307 of 1993, decided on 12.10.2000, annexure P-3 with CWP-14253- 2002), and Tara Chand, Safai Sewak and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 19039 of 1996, decided on 12.03.2001, annexure P-4 with CWP-14253-2002).

277. Still further, the petitioners herein, in para No. 11 of the writ petition, have given details of CWP Nos. 6666 of 2001 (Pritam Singh and others v. State of Punjab); 7222 of 2001 (Water Supply and Sewerage Employees Union v. State of Punjab); 7223 of 2001 (Punjab State Karamchari Dal, Sangrur v. State of Punjab and others); 7409 of 2001 (Municipal Safai Karamchari Union v. State of Punjab); and 7589 of 2001 (Nagar Council Safai Sewak Union v. State of Punjab), wherein also identical relief was sought. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). Copy of one such order dated 05.09.2001, passed in CWP No. 6666 of 2001, has been placed on record as Annexure P-6 alongwith CWP No. 14253 of 2002.

278. The petitioners have also pleaded that after disposal of other cases, i.e. Jagan Nath and others v. State of Punjab’ (CWP No. 5728 of 2001, decided on 18.09.2001), and ‘Dilbagh Singh and others v. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 171 State of Punjab and others’ (CWP No. 10343 of 1993, decided on

18.12.2000), the petitioners of CWP No. 10343 of 1993, filed applications before the Labour Court, which were disposed of by the Lok Adalat of the Labour Court, with directions to the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, to make payment to the applicants by 22.09.2001, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. (Annexure P-7 with CWP No. 14253 of 2002).

279. The petitioners have also placed on record two more orders dated 07.02.2002 and 14.05.2002, passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the cases, titled as ‘Sukhdev Raj and others v. State of Punjab and others’ (CWP No. 7252 of 1996, decided on

07.02.2002, D.B.), and Baljit Singh v. Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Local Bodies and others (CWP No. 3640 of 2002, decided on 14.05.2002, D.B.). CWP No. 17042 of 2002

280. CWP No. 17042 of 2002 (Sr. No. 130 of Annexure ‘C’), has been filed by 57 employees, out of which petitioner Nos. 1 to 21 were working or retired, as members of the Fire Brigade in the Municipal Council, Kotkapura, District Faridkot; petitioner Nos. 22 to 39 were members of the Fire Brigade in Municipal Council, Ferozepur; petitioner No. 40 was working as Fireman in Municipal Council, Muktsar; whereas petitioner Nos. 41 to 51, who were Octroi Clerks/Peon/Pump Driver, were working in Nagar Council, Banur, District Patiala; and likewise petitioner Nos. 52 to 57 were also discharging their duties in the Octroi wing of Municipal Council, Derabassi, as Octroi Clerks and Sanitary Supervisor. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 172 The relief sought and facts pleaded by the petitioners in this case, are almost similar to the one as have already been recorded here- above while dealing with CWP No. 14253 of 2002. Accordingly, for the sake of brevity, the same are not reiterated.

281. While proceeding further, it is important to mention here that both the aforementioned writ petitions, i.e. CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and CWP No. 17042 of 2002, came up for consideration of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) on 05.09.2002 and

24.10.2002, respectively, and the same were disposed of by passing similar orders, as were passed in several other writ petitions, such as CWP Nos. 15831 of 2002, 19852 & 19853 of 2002 etc. At the cost of repetition, order dated 24.10.2002, passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, is reproduced as under:- “ CWP No. 17042 of 2002 Jaswinder Singh and others. Versus The State of Punjab and others. …..Petitioners. Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioners. ….. SWATANTER KUMAR, J. (Oral) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that this Court should issue a direction to the respondents to extend to the petitioners benefits in terms of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors – Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 decided on 15.3.2000 ( Annexure P-3). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 173 While disposing of a number of petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued various directions and modified the order of the High Court. Amongst other directions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, reference to the following two directions would be relevant, which reads as under :- That the employees, workman petitioners before 1. the Supreme Court would be entitled to be given monetary benefit for working on Saturday by granting them extra wages for each of the Saturday of which they have shown to be discharged their duties. Secondly, the petitioner should invoke proper 2. proceedings under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purposes of proper computation in respect of the monetary benefit arising therefrom. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has given finality to the dispute between the parties. The respondents are expected to obey and follow the law laid down by the highest Court of the land and grant benefits to its employees, who were similarly situated in accordance with law. It will not be appropriate for the government to compel its employees to seek redressal of their grievances through process of the court. In this regard, detailed directions were issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satbir Singh & another Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. Civil Writ Petition No.4382 of 2002 decided on 21.3.2002. We do hope that the respondents would at its own at least now and upon consideration of the cases of the petitioners, pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as expeditiously as possible. In any case, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as their right to receive monetary benefits has already been settled by the highest court of the land. If the petitioners have performed their duties on Saturdays and Sundays then in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, their claim can hardly be refuted. In other words, it appears to us that right of the petitioners stands settled and it is only consequential benefits in terms of money that are being denied by the respondents to the petitioners. Appropriate remedy in terms of the above judgment is under the Industrial Disputes Act, but we do hope that respondents would not compel the petitioners to take to take recourse to such procedural law. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 174 This petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- ( SWATANTER KUMAR ) JUDGE Sd/- ( S.S. SARON ) JUDGE Oct. 24, 2002”

282. Now the question arises is, how these two writ petitions, i.e. CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and CWP No. 17042 of 2002, have been revived again, once the same were already disposed of vide the aforementioned orders dated 05.09.2002 and 24.10.2002, respectively.

283. It may be recalled here that challenging the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), wherein writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the judgment in Sirhind’s case (supra), number of appeals before the Hon’ble Apex Court were filed by various Municipalities, departments of the State and Boards etc.. All such appeals were tagged alongwith the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra) [Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2003 being the lead case], which were decided on 14.02.2008.

284. It is also important to mention here that another bunch of appeals involving the issue of ‘parity in employment and equal treatment’, was also pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Charanjit Singh and others (Civil Appeal No. 6562 of 2002 and other connected cases, decided on 05.10.2005, reported as (2006) 9 SCC 321), being the lead case. The said controversy reached the Hon’ble Apex Court after the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 175 decision rendered by another 3 Judges Full Bench of this Court (Swatanter Kumar, Amar Bir Singh Gill and J.S. Narang, JJ.) in the case of Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 14056 of 1999, decided on 13.12.2001, reported as (2002) 1 SLR 694 (FB) : ILR (2002) 2 P&H 35 : Law Finder Doc Id # 72444).

285. When the orders dated 05.09.2002 and 24.10.2002, passed in CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and CWP No. 17042 of 2002, were challenged in appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court, instead of tagging of the same with the case of Nagar Council, Kapurthala (supra) and other bunch of appeals, the same were clubbed alongwith other set of bunch of appeals, i.e. with the case of Charanjit Singh (supra) [Civil Appeal No. 6562 of 2002], probably with the assumption that the aforementioned issue of ‘parity in employment and equal treatment’, is also involved in these two cases, i.e. CWP Nos. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002.

286. Interestingly, 3 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the Charanjit Singh’s case (supra), did not concur with the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar’s case (supra), and held that ‘persons employed on contract cannot claim equal pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work’, whereas Full Bench of this Court had disposed of the cases which were before it by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Accordingly, while disposing of all the appeals before it, 3 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court remitted all the matters back to the High Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), alongwith these two writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 176 This is how, these two writ petitions are on the Board of this Court, for final adjudication.

287. Before proceeding ahead, one more thing that needs to be highlighted is that during the course of scrutiny of files of various writ petitions, which are being decided by this Court, it came to surface that number of employees/applicants while moving respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal, have pleaded that their right to claim extra wages in lieu of work on Saturdays, has already been determined on the strength of orders passed in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, whereas the same is still pending final adjudication before this Court, in the manner as mentioned here-above. Meaning thereby, either the employees were under some misconception that the order dated 24.10.2002, passed in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, has also attained finality after passing of the judgment in Sirhind’s case (supra) or they have deliberately concealed the true facts before the Industrial Tribunal(s), about pendency of the said case.

288. Having gone through the factual particulars of CWP No. 11624 of 2015, there is no dispute that the applicants, who moved applications (as per the details mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure ‘C’), were/are working in the Octroi Department/Wing on different posts such as Peon, Clerk, Sweeper, Sanitary Inspector, Plumber Helper, Junior Assistant, and Restorer etc.

289. In this case, another question arises for consideration is whether other set of employees working in the Octroi wing than the persons who were posted as Octroi Clerks and Peons, would also be PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 177 entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). To answer the said question, it would be necessary to go back to the observations recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment in Sirhind’s case (supra), already reproduced above.

290. As already noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the duties assigned to the Class IV/Peon and Class III/Clerks are interchangeable, they form a one group and are entitled for extra wages for working on Saturdays, when the employee posted at particular time in the offices, enjoys Saturday as complete off day.

291. CWP No. 11624 of 2015 deserves to be dismissed by maintaining the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Even otherwise also, the Industrial Tribunal has recorded its finding that except of the applicants Jaswant Singh and Varinder Singh, all others had filed CWP No. 16326 of 2002, which was decided vide order dated 10.10.2002, by granting liberty therein to file application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Findings recorded in paragraph Nos. 16 to 23 of the impugned order dated 13.05.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, in this regard would be relevant. However, for the sake brevity same need not to be reproduced here again. Since all the applicants (who are numbered as respondents No. 1 to 29 in CWP No. 11624 of 2015) are belonging to the Octroi Department, whose rights have already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (Supra), thus, CWP No. 11624 of 2015, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 178 filed by the Municipal Council, Derabassi (Mohali) is hereby dismissed.

292. Having gone through the paper book of CWP No. 14253 of 2002, this Court has found a vague averment made by 27 petitioners, in paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition, which reads as under: “2. That the Petitioners are Class III & Class IV employees working on the posts of Octori Clerks, Jr. Asstt., Sewerman, Fireman, Drivers, etc. working in the Nagar Council, respondent No.3. …...” Undoubtedly, a document in the shape of Annexure P-1, has been appended with the writ petition, wherein except for mentioning the name, designation and date of joining, no other particulars as regards to the Service Rules or Standing orders etc., governing their conditions of service, or to which ‘Service’ they actually belong, have been mentioned. Thus, mentioning of the formal particulars, as given in Annexure P-1, cannot be said to be complete and exhaustive. The petitioners cannot claim in air that their conditions of service are at par with other set of employees working in offices, who enjoy five day week. Similarly, in CWP No. 17042 of 2002, there are total 57 petitioners and similar is the situation regarding detailing of the facts therein.

293. As already explained hereabove, in both the writ petitions, there are two categories of employees, (i) who were/are working in the Octroi Wing of the Municipalities, and (ii) who are members of the Fire Brigade. And, by no stretch of imagination it can be said or claimed that they are governed by same set of Rules. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 179

294. This Court, while dealing with the cases of the members of the Fire Brigade (under Block/Category-1, Sr. Nos. 1 to 127 of Annexure ‘B’), has already recorded its findings and conclusions in detail (refer para Nos. 258 to 270), who were working under different Municipalities. And, is of the firm opinion that the same can be safely borrowed and applied to the facts and merits of these two writ petitions also, for those employees/petitioners, who were/are serving as members of the Fire Brigade, attached with the respective Municipalities. Thus, for deciding the issue raised by them, no further reasoning is required. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that those employees/petitioners, who are working in the Fire Brigade, and have approached this Court, by filing CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002, respectively, have no case for seeking ‘extra wages’ in lieu of the duty performed on Saturdays/holidays. Accordingly, both the writ petitions qua the members of the Fire Brigade are hereby dismissed.

295. At the same time, the reasoning adopted by this Court in CWP No. 11624 of 2015 (Sr. No. 128 of Annexure ‘C’), would be followed and applied qua those employees/petitioners, who were/are working in the Octroi Wing of the Municipalities, in the same terms as has already been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). It is also clarified that such employees/petitioners would be entitled to seek their remedy in view of Sirhind’s case (supra), by filing exhaustive applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, if so advised. However, said exercise be completed within three months from the date of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 180 receipt of certified copy of this judgment, and such claim would depend upon the law of limitation on the subject matter, if any operates. Thus, with aforesaid terms, CWP Nos. 11624 of 2015, 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002 are hereby disposed of. Block/Category of Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads), Punjab [Annexure: ‘D’, Total 82 cases, Sr. Nos. 131 to 212]

296. 82 writ petitions of this Block/category, pertains to the employees of the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) [PWD(B&R)] Punjab, working in its different Divisions at Patiala, Nabha, Ferozepur, Faridkot, Moga, Mohali and Ludhiana. All these 82 petitions have been filed by the employer/State authorities against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s) – Patiala, Bathinda and Ludhiana, as mentioned in detail in Annexure ‘D’.

297. The employees in these writ petitions were holding the posts/designations as Beldar, Chowkidar, Mali, Painter, Moter Mate, Carpenter, Work Mistri, Mason, Floor Polisher, Fitter, Cleaner, Driver, Work Inspector, Road Inspector, Surveyor, Work Munshi, Store Keeper and Research Assistant (only in CWP-23252-2014), at the relevant time.

298. It has been asserted by the petitioners in this block/category of writ petitions that the employees holding the aforementioned posts/designations are deputed for field duty and as a part and parcel of duty attached to their Services, they are required to work from Monday to Saturday, such as for the upkeep of roads and maintenance of buildings etc., falling under the jurisdiction of the Department. They get salaries and PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 181 pay scales, as fixed by the Government from time to time. Their seniorities and postings are separate from office staff, such as Peons, Clerks, Assistants, Stenographers etc. Neither the field staff can be transferred or posted in the offices, nor the office staff can be deployed in the field for carrying out various types of job, some of which are technical in nature. The nature of duty is different. The broad stand taken by the petitioners/department in these writ petitions is that there is no inter-changeability between field staff and office staff.

299. In these 82 writ petitions, applicants/employees have primarily relied upon the notification dated 07.04.1980, whereby instead of two Saturdays in month, it was decided by the State of Punjab that all the four Saturdays in a month would be treated as Holidays. Applicants/employees have also relied upon the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) thereby disposing of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) and submitted that they are entitled for extra wages for their working on Saturdays. However, in the applications filed by the employees, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, there appears to be no details as to how they can equate their right with the employees, who were parties in Sirhind’s case (supra).

300. Employees were required to firstly plead in particular that they are posted in the field duty and the work is taken from them on Saturdays, which in fact, is otherwise off day for the employees of the office staff. In view of the observations made in Sirhind’s case (supra), PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 182 employees were also required to lead evidence to the effect that their services are inter-transferable, they have a common seniority list and are governed by one set of rules. Surprisingly, learned Tribunal perhaps without looking the pleadings from the said angle, on the one hand observed that such an aspect is not available on file and, still by drawing its presumption observed that employees are eligible to extra wages for working on Saturdays at par with employees working in the Octroi department, whose rights were dealt with by the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

301. To the best of understanding of statement of law, such a presumption is unsustainable because the party who alleges a particular fact is casted with a duty to prove the same by leading positive/affirmative evidence in that regard. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, the right or entitlement of the employees cannot be created first time by the Court.

302. Not only this, as already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment (refer para No. 154), Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated

02.03.1994, on the subject of ‘performing of government duty by the field staff on gazetted holiday’, in continuation of an earlier letter No. 6/10/93-6PP111/20107, dated 03.11.1993, was issued by the Punjab Government, as per which the field staff was not entitled to enjoy the benefit of holiday on Saturday. Thus, even otherwise also, observations or the principle of law laid down in Sirhind’s case (supra) would not be applicable for the employees of PWD (B&R) of the State of Punjab. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 183

303. Employees’ claim of extra wages, for working on Saturdays on the strength of the notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra), as issued by the State of Punjab, and judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), is not enough to establish any pre-existing right, for starting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, pleaded case of the department in these writ petitions is that there is neither any common seniority list nor the services are inter-transferable, in view of PWD Code and the clauses therein. In the petitions filed by the State of Punjab, pleaded part in CWP No. 13715 of 2017 (mentioned at Sr. No. 131 of Annexure ‘D’), in Para 6 (vii), says as under: field staff “6(vii) That the respondent have field duty and the applicant is thus in the category of field staff. Ex.M1 is the copy of PWD manual of orders and in clause 8.91 the detail of field duty of Respondent No. 01 to 27 has been given. The Respondent cannot be transferred and posted in any office of the Petitioner, where only the office staff can be posted in view of the exigency of assignment job. The applicants has neither any common seniority with the category of office staff. The the Respondent cannot be transferred and posted in the office of the Petitioner. The applicants cannot claim same pattern of holiday vis-a- vis of office staff due to different nature of work and job requirement. Service conditions of the Respondent are all together different from the office staff. Service conditions of the Respondent being work-charged employee are governed by Para 1.129 to 1.132 of P.W.D. code, copy of which Ex.M2. but the service condition of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Respondent cannot be treated at par with the regular class-IV employees working in the offices. Notification Ex.W6 produced by the Respondent issued by the Punjab Government in which Saturdays as declared holiday is not applicable to the applicants and in this notification benefits not available to the field staff. Because in Para No.1.132 (a) (b)(c) PWD code which provides for grant of 15 casual leaves, alternative Sundays as maximum five gazetted holidays as of days. Saturdays is not holiday for the Respondent and as such the Respondent is not entitled to any compensation.” PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 184

304. In support of said assertion, letter No. 4620, dated

25.02.1984, issued by the Secretary to Government Punjab, PWD B&R/P.H. Branches, to the Chief Engineer, Punjab, PWD B&R Branch, Patiala, has been annexed as Annexure P-5, with CWP No. 13715 of 2017, which reads as under:- “Copy of Letter No. 4620, dated 25th Feb. 1984 from the Secretary to Govt. Punjab PWD B&R/P.H. Branches to the Chief Engineer, Pb. PWD B&R Branch, Patiala. Sub: Work charged establishment-Grant of paid holidays to casual labour. The Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that on completion of six full days of work, the next day may be treated as a holiday with pay, in respect of the staff employed on muster rolls by the Public Works Department, B&R and Public Health Branches. Necessary amendment may be made to the rule 1.132 of the PWD Code.

2. The memo issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide U.O. No. 41211-Pb-63, dated 9th/10th February, 1964. Sd/- Under Secretary B&R for Secretary to Government Punjab, PWD B&R/PH Branches. Copy Endst. No. PWSSB-90/EA(3)/6432-35, 24.04.1990, from Managing Director, PWSEB, Chandigarh to the Superintending Engineer, PWSS Circle, Circle Patiala & others for information and taking necessary action. Endst. No. 3333-88 Dated: 8.5.90 A copy of the above is forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Punjab W/S Sewerage Division Patiala/Mech. Patiala/Sangrur/Ludhiana/Mohali information and necessary action. Jalandhar Sd/- Superintending Engineer, Punjab W/S & Sewerage Circle, Patiala.” PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 185

305. Alongwith CWP No. 13715 of 2017, the petitioners also placed on record copy of the order dated 13.04.2009, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur, in Application No. 49 of 27.02.2003, titled as “Ashwani Kumar and 146 others v. Secretary to Government Punjab, PWD (B&R) Branch Chandigarh and others”, as Annexure P-6. The said application, filed under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, has been rejected by the Tribunal, by giving the reasoning in para Nos. 5 to 14 of its order dated 13.04.2009.

306. Not only this, another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), in the case of Soma Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 5220 of 2003, decided on 22.09.2003), has also been placed on record as Annexure P-7, in CWP No. 13715 of 2017. In Soma Ram’s case (supra), the petitioners were working in the PWD (B&R) as Mate, Supervisor, Boatman, Carpenter, Chowkidar, and Beldar etc. and filed the writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them benefits equal to their counter parts working in the office, and to extend the benefit of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as given in Sirhind’s case (supra). After noticing the question posed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), as also the manner in which answer was given, finding no merit in the claim of the petitioners in Soma Ram’s case (supra), Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the same by observing as under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 186 Operative part of the judgment in Some Ram’s case (supra) “ The issue to be determined in the instant case is whether the petitioners are entitled to extra wages for working on Saturdays. The petitioners in the present case are employees of the P.W.D. (B&R). They are holding posts of Motor mate/Supervisor, Boatman, Carpenter, Chowkidar, Beldar and Mate. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners have been posted in the field where they are required to discharge duties even on Saturdays whereas the employees working in the offices of the P.W.D. (B&R) do not work on Saturdays. It is, therefore, submitted on the basis of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (noticed above) that extra wages should be paid to the petitioners. There is no doubt that the petitioners in the present case render duties for six working days in every week, but, there is no parity in the controversy in the present case with that of the decision rendered by the Apex Court (noticed above). The posts occupied by the petitioners are only in the field. There is no such post (as is held by the petitioners) in any of the offices of the P.W.D. (B&R). The pleadings of the present case also do not reveal that any person belonging to the cadres to which the petitioners belong are discharging duties for a period of five working days per week or are not required to work on Saturdays like the petitioners. The basis in granting relief to the appellants before the Apex Court, in the decision (noticed above) was that persons from the same cadre borne on the same seniority list working for six days in a week, were being granted the same emoluments as those who had to render duties for only five working days a week. In other words no benefit was being given to the employees for working for an additional 52 working Saturdays per year. The aforesaid position does not exist in the present case. In the present case, it cannot be said that there is an arbitrary determination of wages payable to the persons belonging to the same cadre. It is not the grievance of the petitioners, in the present case, that a person similarly situated as the petitioners working for lesser number of days is drawing the same emoluments as the petitioners. For the reasons recorded above, we find that there is no parity in the controversy raised in the present case, with that which arose for consideration before the Apex Court. No other argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioners. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 187 We, therefore, find no merit in the contention of the petitioners in their claim for additional wages. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (J.S. KHEHAR) JUDGE Sd/- (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

22.09.2003”

307. Moreover, there is no rebuttal/denial by the employees on record. Thus, this Court is constrained to reach to the conclusion that the conditions of Service of the employees involved in the writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure ‘D’), who were/are working as field staff employees in the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads) in the State of Punjab, are entirely different and not comparable with the employees in Octroi Department, whose rights were subject matter in Sirhind’s case (supra).

308. Hence, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in 82 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure ‘D’), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed. Resultantly, applications filed by the employees under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are ordered as ‘dismissed’. Block/Category of Public Works Department Health), Punjab [Annexure: ‘E’, Total 12 cases, Sr. Nos. 213 to 224] (Public

309. 12 writ petitions (Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure ‘E’) of this Block/category, pertains to the employees working in the office of the Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot. All these PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 188 12 petitions have been filed by the employer/State authorities against the orders passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, as mentioned in detail in Annexure ‘E’, against respective cases.

310. The employees in these writ petitions were holding the posts/designations as Store Keeper, Chowkidar, Pump Attendant, Pump Operator, Sewerman, Plumber, Work Munshi, Helper, Mali, Driver, and Key Man, at the relevant time.

311. After allowing of all the applications which were filed by the field staff employees posted with Public Works Department (Public Health) in the State of Punjab, the writ petitions have been filed by the State (for details see: Annexure ‘E’). The employees in all these cases have also based their claim on the letter dated 07.04.1980 issued by the State of Punjab, whereby instead of two Saturdays in a month, it was decided that all the four Saturdays would remain off day. Employees also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) vis-(cid:224)-vis rights of the field staff officials working in the Octroi Wing. Neither in the applications filed by the employees posted in field area nor in the evidence led in support of the pleadings, it has been established that their claim of wages for working on Saturday in the field area is at par with the employees posted for office duty, as discussed in Sirhind’s case (supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

312. There is no evidence services of applicants/employees are inter-transferable with the office staff or there is common seniority list or their services are governed with one set of rules. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 189 In the absence of any such pleading or evidence, in the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, employees cannot claim parity with the employees posted with the Octroi Department for the purpose of claiming their entitlement for recovery of the amount by way of the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

313. Moreover, the reasoning assigned by this Court for declining the claim of the employees, while dealing with writ petitions under Block/Category of Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads), Punjab (82 cases, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure ‘D’)[see para Nos. 296 to 308 of the judgment], is also applicable for declining the claim of the employees of the Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab, as well. However, same is not reiterated here in its entirety.

314. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, which have been impugned in 12 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure ‘E’), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed. Resultantly, applications filed by the employees under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are ordered as ‘dismissed’. Block/Category of Punjab Roadways [Annexure: ‘F’, Total 95 cases, Sr. Nos. 225 to 319]

315. Under this Block/Category, total 95 writ petitions concerning the cases of the employees of the Punjab Roadways are covered (for details, see Sr. Nos. 225 to 319 of Annexure ‘F’). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 190 Out of these 95 writ petitions, 92 cases (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 225 to 316 of Annexure ‘F’) have been filed by the State of Punjab and its authorities, impugning the orders passed by Industrial Tribunal(s), – Bathinda, Gurdaspur, Patiala, Jalandhar, Amritsar, and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, whereas remaining 03 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 317 to 319 of Annexure ‘F’), i.e. CWP Nos. 12561, 12605 and 17221 of 2013, have been filed by the employees, feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala.

316. Here, the employees who were working as Conductor, Driver, Assistant Cashier, Junior Technicians, Electricians, Helpers, Carpenter, Painter, Blacksmith, Mechanic, Welder, Store Boy, Sweeper, Fitter, Store Attendant, Sub Inspector, Inspector, TG-2, TG-3, Tyreman, Washing Boy, T/Mate, Upholster, Turner, Chowkidar, Security Guard, Attendant, Cleaner etc., approached the respective Industrial Tribunals, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking the benefit of extra wages for the work done by them on Saturdays/holidays.

317. Various rules and other statutory provisions, which govern the conditions of services of the employees, covered under this Block/category have already been discussed and extracted in the earlier part of this judgment [see para Nos. 109 to 120 of the judgment].

318. Different set of rules have been made to govern the conditions of service of persons holding different cadre posts, as is clear from reading of the citation of the rules mentioned here-under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 191 (i) The Punjab Transport Department (State Service Class III) Rules 1963. (ii) The Punjab Roadways (Workshop) State Service Class III Rules 1977. (iii) The Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977. (iv) The Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service, Class III Rules, 1977. (v) The Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994

319. After reading of aforementioned set of rules as a whole, it comes out that these rules, inter alia, provide the manner in which seniority of the members of a particular Service shall be determined; that their scales of pay, including special pay, if any, may be authorised by Government from time to time; that every member of the Service could be transferred to any other office or department of the State; and that in respect of matters not expressly provided for under these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as may have been or may subsequently be adopted or framed by the competent authority.

320. Other than this, by way of legislative enactment, various provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, have also been made applicable to the motor transport workers. [see para Nos. 121 to 127]. It may be recalled that this enactment has been made specifically to protect the interests of the motor transport workers, which cover matters PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 192 like medical facilities, welfare facilities, hours of work spread-over, rest periods, overtime, annual leave with pay, etc., and the State Government and/or Transport Undertakings/employer are duty bound to make adequate measures for the motor transport works. Further, the provisions of Sections 13 to 20 of the Transport Workers Act specifically provide for fixed hours of work, split of duty, weekly rest as well as compensatory day of rest. Still further, there are specific provisions for payment of extra wages for overtime, grant of annual leave with wages, and payment of wages during leave period in favour of the motor transport workers.

321. Employees detailed here-above, who undoubtedly due to the nature of their services from very inception are bound to perform their duties in the field area, are paid salaries on monthly basis. So this is nobody’s case that the salary is not being paid for the Saturdays or any other holiday. However, comparing their own nature of work/work duties with the employees posted in the offices, this set of employees (ibid) claim extra wages for Saturdays by saying that they have enjoyed lesser leisure period in one week than the office staff people. But such a claim requires the pre-determination of the right of the employees at the level of the office of the authority concerned or any other Judicial Forum/Court and quasi-judicial authority, declaring the existing right of the employees posted in the field duty, making them entitled to recover the amount for such period. Neither there is any such pleading nor any evidence led by the employees through their applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 193 Act, who are now before this Court in these writ petitions filed by the Transport department of the State of Punjab. The employees herein have also failed in pleading or proving on record that their rights are equal to the office staff employees as has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). Thus, there is no point in wasting time to examine parity with the office staff employees of the Transport Department, with the present set of employees, who are working in the field area.

322. First of all, it is apt to note that there are no specific conditions of service mentioned or no specific rules pleaded in the applications filed by the employees while asking for the extra wages for working on Saturdays, while being posted for field duty. On examination of the record of the cases, which have been decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, it is found that the reasoning assigned by the said Tribunal is well speaking because the right claimed at par with right of those employees, who were before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), was based upon a different set of facts and those employees were held entitled by the Hon’ble Apex Court after reaching to the conclusion that they cannot be put to any discrimination because the employees of the field staff and employees of office staff form a one group/cadre.

323. In the present cases, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence on the said score. Thus, the claim raised in respective applications is worthless. Moreover, the applications have been filed by the employees before the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 194 who were/are posted in the field duty as Conductor, Driver, Technicians, Electricians, Helpers, Carpenter, Painter, Blacksmith, Mechanic, Welder, Store Boy, Fitter, Tyreman, Washing Boy, Upholster, Turner, Cleaner etc. By implication of the nature of the job itself, the contention is wholly unacceptable that despite, being employed by the employer for rendering the duties attached to said posts, they should be paid extra wages for working on Saturdays separately. There is no denial that each and every employee is employed for services by paying salary on monthly basis. Once the employees are taken in service for rendering of field duties from the very inception, he/she is bound to perform the duties throughout the service period under the rules/terms and conditions which are applicable to him/her.

324. There is no denial from the employees side that the provisions of the Transport Workers Act are not applicable to them. It is also not their case that the benefits provided under the said legislative enactment, are not being extended to them by the authorities. Meaning thereby, the Motor Transport Workers are fully enjoying various facilities and concessions available to them under various provisions of the Transport Workers Act, which have already been mentioned in detail in the earlier part of this judgment.

325. Once adequate measures, facilities and concessions have already been provided to the Motor Transport Workers, by virtue of Transport Workers Act, which are in addition to the salary, allowances and other monetary benefits prescribed under the rules governing their conditions of service, such employees cannot come forward with the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 195 grievance that they have been discriminated in any manner when they worked on Saturdays/holiday.

326. It has already been discussed in detail in the earlier part of this judgment that the provisions of law contained under Section 33C of the ID Act is only for initiation of recovery proceedings qua a ‘right’ which might have been adjudicated in advance to the initiation of such process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. In other words, Section 33C(2) of the ID Act deals with the recovery of money, and the proceedings under this section are in the nature of an execution. And, while exercising power under this provision, a dispute between an employer and a workman/employee cannot be determined. As per the settled mandate of law, without prior adjudication or recognition of the claim of the workman, proceedings for computation of arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by him, shall not be maintainable for its adjudication under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Thus, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, and it can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. To strengthen the view point of this Court, judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Ganesh Razak (supra) and Kankuben (supra) are pressed into.

327. Thus, it was incumbent upon the employees to plead and prove that a pre-existing right to claim extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays, was determined/declared in their favour, failing which they could not approach the Tribunal under the provisions of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 196 Section 33C(2) of the ID Act., and in such a situation, the Court/Labour Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction by virtue of provision of law, i.e. Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

328. In view of above, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in the writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 225 to 316 of Annexure ‘F’, are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed, and the applications filed by the employees therein are deemed to be dismissed. And, the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 317 to 319 of Annexure ‘F’, i.e. CWP Nos. 12561, 12605 and 17221 of 2013, as also the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are hereby dismissed by affirming the orders impugned therein, which were passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s). Block/Category of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) (Annexure: ‘G’, Total 09 cases, Sr. Nos. 320 to 328]

329. This Block/category covers 9 writ petitions (Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure ‘G’), pertaining to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.), which have been filed by the employer/PRTC against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda.

330. The employees, who were working in the office of the General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada, as Conductor, Driver, Blacksmith, Mechanic, Fitter, Inspector, Sub Inspector and Chief Inspector, approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, by PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 197 filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act seeking the benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays, which were allowed.

331. As already discussed in detail in para Nos. 128 to 138 of this judgment, Class III and IV employees (now Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’) of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC), are governed by the PRTC Regulations. The posts of the employees whose cases are involved under this Block/Category of writ petitions, find mention in Appendix ‘A’ appended to the PRTC Regulations.

332. As per Regulation 3(i) of the PRTC Regulations, all the employees of the PRTC are required to perform and carry out such duties and functions as they are ordinarily required to perform and the same are mentioned in their appointment letters or entrusted to them by the Corporation and its competent authorities. Further, as per Regulation 3(iii), an employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation for the whole time, but he will be required to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transport Workers Act. Meaning thereby, various concessions and benefits, under the Transport Workers Act, are also available to the employees of the PRTC, like the employees of the Punjab Roadways. Further, as per Regulation 4(a) & 4(b) of the PRTC Regulations, there is distinct and separate classification of various Posts/cadres belonging to Class III and Class IV Services, which is as under:- Class III (i) Ministerial Staff, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 198 (ii) Operation Staff, and (iii) Workshop Staff Class IV (i) Ministerial Staff (ii) Workshop Staff. Thus, object of the framers of the PRTC Regulations is very much clear, services of posts have been classified in different groups and by keeping in mind the nature of duties being performed by each one of them. Not only this, as per Regulation 12 of the PRTC Regulations, if the cadre of the members within one Service or under same classification is different, then their separate seniority shall be fixed cadre-wise. Though under Regulation 19 of the PRTC Regulations, all employees are liable to be transferred to any station or place within the jurisdiction of PRTC, but it is not there that a member of the Service covered under a particular classification can be transferred or posted to another group or cadre. In other words, an employee who is holding the post of a particular cadre under Operation Staff or Workshop Staff, cannot be posted or transferred to work as Ministerial Staff. There are specific provisions under the PRTC Regulations, i.e. Regulations 36 to 40, concerning working hours, weekly holidays, compensatory holidays, leaves, overtime allowance, hours of work for every class and group of employees, fixing of shifts etc.

333. On comparison of the pleadings, other material, as well as the reasoning adopted by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, in its orders, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 199 concerning these 9 writ petitions (Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure ‘G’), this Court finds that the same are almost identical to the writ petitions pertaining to the Punjab Roadways, which have been dealt with here- above (Sr. Nos. 225 to 319 of Annexure ‘F’). The only difference is in the nomenclature of the rules/regulations, which are akin to each others with little variance here and there. Thus, after satisfying itself, this Court is of considered opinion that without making any extra exercise, the discussion, reasoning and observations already made in para Nos. 319 to 326 of this judgment, can be safely followed and applied to decide the present Block/category of 09 writ petitions pertaining to the PRTC.

334. Hence, all the writ petitions from Serial Nos. 330 to 328 of Annexure ‘G’, filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) are hereby allowed. Resultantly, the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, impugned in the said writ petitions are hereby set aside being not sustainable, and the respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees therein are also deemed to be dismissed. Block/Category of Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government [Annexures: ‘H’ to ‘N’, Total 89 cases, Sr. Nos. 329 to 417]

335. Under this block/category, total 89 writ petitions have been carved out, which pertain to the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar; Municipal Corporation, Patiala; Municipal Committee, Jalalabad; Nagar Council, Abohar, Municipal Council, Sangrur; Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Municipal Corporation, Rajpura, as detailed here-under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 200 (A) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar [Annexure: ‘H’, 02 cases – Sr. Nos. 320 to 330] (B) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Patiala [Annexure: ‘I’, 51 cases – Sr. Nos. 331 to 381] (C) Cases of Municipal Committee, Jalalabad [Annexure: ‘J’, 10 cases – Sr. Nos. 382 to 391] (D) Cases of Nagar Council, Abohar [Annexure: ‘K’, 05 cases – Sr. Nos. 392 to 396] (E) Cases of Municipal Council, Sangrur [Annexure: ‘L’, 17 cases – Sr. Nos. 397 to 413] (F) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana [Annexure ‘M’, 02 cases – Sr. Nos. 414 & 415] (G) Cases of Municipal Corporation, Rajpura [Annexure: ‘N’, 02 cases – Sr. Nos. 416 & 417]

336. Orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal(s) – Amritsar, Patiala, Bathinda and Ludhiana, are subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions. One writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 09719 of 2013 (mentioned at Sr. No. 383 of Annexure ‘J’, has been filed by the employees for modifying the order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda. In all the aforementioned writ petitions, the respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees (for detail, see Sr. Nos. 329 to 417 of Annexures ‘H’ to ‘N’) were allowed by accepting the plea that their rights are equal to the employees posted in the field staff of Octroi Department working in the State of Punjab.

337. As there is no assistance to the Court to find out whether the claim of parity is available to such employees or not, nor any material is seen on record by the Court to reach to any conclusion on this aspect, therefore, it is not only hard rather impossible to reach to the conclusion that the rights of municipal employees, whose names find mention in Annexures ‘H’, ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘K’, ‘L’, ‘M’ and ‘N’ of this judgment, who were/are posted as ‘field staff’, could be posted as ‘office staff’ also or PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 201 that their conditions of service were similar and governed under the same set of rules. There is also nothing on record to say whether the seniority list was also common.

338. The nomenclature/cadre/designation of posts of employees covered in this Block/category of writ petitions, are – Safai Karamcharis, Sewermen, Sanitary Mates, Sanitary Jamadars, Pump Operator/Junior Technician, Mali, Chowkidar, Tractor Driver, Beldar, Flying Squad Beldar, Ranger Beldar, Tubewell Driver or Tubewell Operator, Electrician, Fitter, Street Light Petroler, T.W.D., Turner, Welder, Cleaner, Helper, Mason, Oilman, Junior Librarian, Fitter Collie and Vaccinator etc.

339. The relevant statutory provisions of the Act/rules governing the conditions of service of the aforementioned employees, which have been formulated by the Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government, have been reproduced and discussed in para Nos. 83 to 90 and 96 to 108 of this judgment. Just to refresh and recapitulate, the same are again referred in brief.

340. Under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 various categories of Municipalities, such as Municipal or Nagar Councils, Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Committees and Municipal Corporations, are constituted, and for conduct of their business, also framed certain Municipal Services. Under Section 38 of the 1911 Act, the State Government is empowered to make rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the members of various Municipal Services, as well as make classification of such Services. Further provides the State PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 202 Government may transfer any member of a Municipal Service from a post in one committee to a post carrying the same scale of pay in another committee. By exercising the power under the 1911 Act, State of Punjab has formulated various rules for governing the condition of services of different set of Municipal Services. Some of the rules, which are relevant for the present purposes, are:- (i) The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986. (ii) The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984. (iii) The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975.

341. The Punjab Municipal Employees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1986, are applicable to the posts of Daftri, Light Patroller, Dai, Head Mali, Mate, Chowkidar, Peon, Anti-Malaria Beldar, Beldar/Labourer, Fitter/Coolie, Helper, Cleaner, Mali, Munad, Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Record Lifter, Key-man, Recovery Baillif, Khalasi and Oilman, and inter alia, deals with their seniority, pay and allowances, leave, uniform and various other matters. The inter se seniority of the said posts has to be determined cadre-wise in the manner provided under Rule 10. Therefore, there can’t be a common seniority list of two separate cadres of the Service to which these rules apply. And, Rule 24 relating to ‘Interpretation’ provides that ‘if PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 203 any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Government shall decide the same’.

342. The Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984, are applicable to the service of Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates and Sanitary Jamadars, working in the Municipalities in the State of Punjab. Their inter se seniority has to be determined cadre- wise. Rule 17 of the Safai Karamchari Rules specifically deals with the ‘Holidays’ admissible to each member of this Service, and states that they shall have – (a) a paid holiday once a week, (b) three National Holidays, namely, 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October, and (c) four other holidays at the option of the member on any of the festivals specified in Appendix ‘C’ attached with the Safai Karamchari Rules. There is provision for supply of uniform to the members of the Service, free of cost, under Rule 20 of the Safai Karamchari Rules. They shall also be entitled to washing allowance at the rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. Rule 23 of the Safai Karamchari Rules talks about the ‘Weekly working hours’ and it is prescribed that no member shall be required to work for more than eight hours on any day, and work shall be taken in two sessions, i.e. in the morning and in the evening, and the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 204 working hours shall be fixed by the Executive Officer for summer and winter.

343. The Punjab Municipal Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975, regulate the conditions of service of those Services, which find mention in its Appendix ‘A’ (already reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment). Likewise, inter se seniority of the members of a particular Service shall be determined separately, for every category within a Service. And, for the purposes of leave, travelling allowance, joining time, suspension, medical facilities, fees, honoraris, house rent allowance, dearness allowances, fixation of pay, grant of increment etc., it is specifically provided that the members of the Services shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the rules applicable to Punjab Government employees.

344. Surprisingly, neither any of the aforementioned Service Rules have been relied upon by the employees in their respective applications, as is emerging from the record of the writ petitions available before this Court; nor they have attempted to substantiate their right of entitlement for extra wages for duty on Saturdays on the basis of the rules, which are applicable to them.

345. Again, there is nothing brought on record to say that the right for Saturday wages is already settled for being entitled to the amount of extra wages for working on Saturdays, being posted for the field staff duty. Even, there is no parity claimed, pleaded or proved on record with the employees of Octroi Department whose rights were subject matter for adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 205

346. Needless to say that there is specific provision in the Safai Karamchari Rules to the effect that the members of the Service, who are governed by these rules, are required to work for six days in a week. Even, the holidays have been defined for them under the rules. Once, it is specifically mentioned in the service rules with which the job of the employees of the municipalities are governed, there is no meaning to entertain the request for grant of any benefit beyond the scope of the rules.

347. In respect of employees belonging to other cadres, there is nothing available on record to say that their services are inter-changeable; governed with common set of rules and; there is common seniority list of the officials of the field staff and the employees of the office staff. Even, it is pleaded case in written statement of the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation (in the cases decided by the Tribunal at Patiala) that the services of the employees are neither inter-transferable nor there is any common seniority list. It is also pleaded case in the written statement that apart the letter dated 07.04.1980, State of Punjab had again issued a circular with further communication the Muncipal Council/Municipal Corporation, clarifying that the field staff would work for six days a week with one holiday only. Despite such a specific stand taken by the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation, neither same has been adhered for reaching to the correct conclusion by learned Tribunal nor any judicial notice has been taken to that effect.

348. Undoubtedly, pleaded case of the municipalities before the Tribunal is that it was the only case of the employees of Octroi Department, which was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 206 Sirhind’s case (supra), and they were found to have form one common group/cadre. Thus, the field staff employees of Octroi Department were found to be entitled for extra wages/compensation for the work done by them on Saturdays, which infact is an off day for the office staff employees. But, there is no parity between the Octroi Department employees vis-(cid:224)-vis the employees detailed here-above, i.e. Safai Karamcharis, Sewerman, Sanitary Mates, Sanitary Jamadars, Pump Operator/Junior Technician, Mali, Chowkidar, Tractor Driver, Baildar, Squad Baildar, Ranger Baildar, Tubewell driver, Tubewell operator, Electrician, Fitter, Street Light patroller, PWD turner, Welder Cleaner, helper, mason, oilman, Junior Librarian, fitter Colleague and Vaccinator etc. Even as per the nomenclature of the posts, all the aforementioned employees are meant to perform their outdoor duties i.e. as field staff and that too, right from the time of inception in service career. Therefore, by any mean such a plea does not lie in their mouth to claim parity with the other employees who are posted for office duties.

349. In, so far the scope of invoking of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and exercise of jurisdiction under it by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is concerned, elaborate discussions have already been made in para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment, and the view point taken by this Court, can safely be borrowed and applied to the facts of the writ petitions covered under this Block/category also. It is seen that the Industrial Tribunals while allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have completely over- looked this important aspect and allowed the applications by passing PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 207 cyclostyle orders by adopting a casual approach, with the assumption and presumption that right to claim extra wages/compensation has accrued automatically to all the employees in terms of judgment in Sirhind’s case (supra). Accordingly, this Court is of the view point that such type of orders cannot be allowed to sustain.

350. With the observations made hereabove, all the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 329 to 382 and 384 to 417 of Annexures ‘H’ to ‘N’ are hereby allowed and the orders impugned therein, thereby allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are set aside. Resultantly, respective applications filed by the employees are deemed to be of no meaning. However, CWP No. 09719 of 2013 (mentioned at Sr. No. 383 of Annexure ‘J’), which has been filed by the employees working in the Municipal Committee, Jalalabad, seeking modification of the order passed by Industrial Tribunal Bathinda, is dismissed. Block/Category of Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab [Annexure: ‘O’, total 34 cases, Sr. Nos. 418 to 451]

351. This Block/category deals with 34 cases (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure ‘O’), pertaining to the employees working in various Sub-divisions of the Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab, located at Ludhiana and Faridkot, as mentioned against each case.

352. In this segment of cases, the employees were working as Air Conditioner Mechanic, Technician Pump Operator, Sewerman, Helper, Electrician, Oilman, Fitter, Mali, Chowkidar, Store-Chowkidar, Beldar, Plumber Helper, and Keyman. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 208

353. The employees approached the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, respectively, by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays, prima facie, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

354. Here again, no assistance has been rendered to the Court in regard to the rules governing the conditions of service of aforementioned employees. Even, as regard the entitlement of the right to claim extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays, nothing specific is available on record so as to reach to any conclusion on this aspect. Likewise, there is also nothing on record to say whether the seniority list was also common or the services of the employees in question were inter- changeable with those who were/are working as office staff.

355. The employees in the aforementioned writ petitions are those who were/are employed to execute their duties in the Water Supply and Sanitation Division and already deployed for field duties. Their nature of working is clear from the designation of the posts they held. There cannot be any doubt that all such employees are engaged for field duties, i.e. outside the office and this fact is also well known to them since the inception of their career. Concerned Industrial Tribunals, while allowing the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have taken note of the fact that as per the notification dated 07.04.1980, Government of Punjab declared the five days week for the purpose of working in the offices and also declared Saturdays as holiday. Thus, on such premise, the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 209 right of the employees for grant of extra wages/compensation having worked on Saturdays has been considered and thereafter allowed.

356. Probably, Industrial Tribunals were never apprised of the fact that said notification dated 07.04.1980, was later on supplemented by the State of Punjab, by way of specific clarification, vide Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, which was issued in partial modification of another notification No. 6/18/79/GE(6)/10898, dated

06.09.1979. As per the clarification in the said circular dated 02.03.1994, the field staff was asked to work for six days in a week. In other words only one day i.e. Sunday, was meant as holiday/off day for them. The letter is silent about the employees working in the offices. Surprisingly, said letter has never been highlighted by the employees nor by the State Government. However, this Court got a chance to go through the contents of the clarificatory letter dated 02.03.1994, when Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the employer in some of the writ petitions, made available translated version of the same. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the rights of the employees qua extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays, is to be considered solely on the basis of the Punjab Government’s notification dated 07.04.1980.

357. Otherwise also, in none of the cases employees have pleaded their service conditions and the rules applicable qua them. It is only in the appointment letters or the relevant service rules, where the terms and conditions qua the services to be rendered by a particular class of employees, are detailed. But none of such letters/rules have been brought PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 210 on record either before the Industrial Tribunal or before this Court. In the absence of any such pleaded facts otherwise also it cannot be concluded that the employees of the Water Supply and Sanitation Department in the State of Punjab, have pre-existing right to enable them to claim extra wages/compensation for Saturday working, by way of filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

358. As already observed in detail, there cannot be any dispute to laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding maintainability of the application that it has to be treated as a recovery process in the execution proceedings and cannot be used first time to get the right declared regarding the entitlement of money claimed through the petition. [see, para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment]

359. Moreover, employees of the Water Supply and Sanitation Department cannot claim parity with the employees whose rights were decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), wherein comparative study of the employees working in the offices at the field duty was done and thereafter it was concluded that both set of employees form one common group. In the present case, there is neither such plea raised nor any evidence has been led by the employees. Therefore, merely on the basis of declaration of entitlement of the employees of the Octroi Department or application of the principles of equality, cannot be of any help to the employees of the other departments like the present one, unless complete facts in regard to the service condition and the rules applicable and nature of duties etc. are demonstrated before the Court. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 211

360. In fact Sirhind’s case (supra) settles the law that equals who are forming one group, cannot be treated differently. Incidentally no such fact or evidence emerges for its examination from the applications filed by the employees before the Tribunal.

361. Since the aforesaid aspects were never taken note of by the Industrial Tribunals, I do not find any substantial reason to allow the sustainability of the orders impugned in this block/category of writ petitions.

362. As a result of above discussion, the writ petitions, mentioned at Serial Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure ‘O’, are allowed and the impugned orders passed by respective Industrial Tribunals, are hereby set aside. Resultantly the applications filed by the employees in these cases, i.e. under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are rendered meaningless. Block/Category of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board [Annexure: ‘P’, Total 28 cases, Sr. Nos. 452 to 479]

363. In this block/category, there are total 28 writ petitions (detailed at Sr. Nos. 452 to 479 of Annexure ‘P’). Out of 28, writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 452 to 472, 478 & 479 of Annexure ‘P’, i.e. 23 writ petitions, have been preferred by the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, impugning the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathina. Remaining 5 writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 473 to 477 of Annexure ‘P’, i.e. CWP Nos. 06235, 06204, 06245, 06255 & 06725, all of 2015, have been filed by the employees for modification of the orders passed by the Tribunal. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 212

364. The employees of this block/category of cases were working as Junior Technician (Pump Operator), Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Assistant Pump Operator, Fitter/Coollie, Electrician Helper, Beldar and Chargeman, in the Municipal Council, Ferozepur, and approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturday, prima facie, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

365. So far as the whole-time regular employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board are concerned, their conditions of service are governed by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Services) Regulations, 1981. Various categories of Services are contained in Appendix ‘B’ of the 1981 Regulations. The appointing authority is competent to order transfer of all employees/officers within their sphere of jurisdiction and control, and the Managing Director is competent to order transfer of employees/officers from one circle to other circle and from field offices to the Head Office and vice versa. It has also been prescribed in the 1981 Regulations that where there are different cadres in a service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre, and in the matters of leave, joining time, suspension, honorarium, dearness allowance, fixation of pay, grant of increment, crossing of efficiency bar, liveries and other cognate matters, to which regulations are not made, shall be governed by the Punjab CSR, framed by the State of Punjab. Relevant provisions of the 1981 Regulations have already been discussed and reproduced in detail in para Nos. 139 to 143 of this judgment. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 213

366. Primarily on two grounds the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the said employees, have been allowed in regard to the claim of extra wages/compensation for having worked on Saturdays – (i) As per Sirhind’s case (supra) the field staff has already been ordered by the Hob’ble Apex Court to be entitled for extra wages for Saturday working; and (ii) As per notification dated 07.04.1980 circulated by the State of Punjab there are five working days in a week and two holidays/off days. From the record, it does not appear that the parameters which were before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of employees whose rights were under consideration in Sirhind’s case (supra) were demonstrated by the employees through the applications in question or any such material was brought on record to say that the field staff of the employees of the Punjab water supply and the Sewerage Board, is having equal treatment in regard to the service conditions and other parameters with office staff employees and, thus, on the basis of parity they can be awarded the same benefit of extra wages.

367. Therefore, in the absence of any such pleading or the evidence available on record, it would be very unfair with the State/Board to part with the public money by making payment of extra wages for Saturday working by the field staff employees of the Board. Therefore, broadly speaking this Court is firm in believing that the facts in involved in Sirhind’s case (supra) and the parameters considered and laid down as PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 214 a principle of law therein, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present set of writ petitions, i.e. for considering the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the field staff employees of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

368. Another aspect is that the notification dated 07.04.1980, which has been made basis for awarding relief, was later on clarified by the State of Punjab by issuing clarification vide Memo./letter dated

02.03.1994 (ibid). According to which the field Staff was required to work for six days a week and, thus, a differentiation was created by the State of Punjab between the office staff employees and filed staff employees. Undoubtedly, such a distinction might have been drawn after considering the nature of the duties and the exigencies required to meet out the public needs. Interestingly, the aforementioned Memo./letter dated

02.03.1994 was never challenged by anybody.

369. Moreover, while considering the rights claimed by the employees, this Court finds that there is neither any assistance in Court nor the facts have been clearly pleaded in the applicants/writ petitions, as to whether the employees who filed such applications are belonging to Municipal Council, Ferozepur or Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Simple statement of fact that ‘the employees are working under the control of the Municipal Council Ferozepur’, would not be enough to understand the terms of the service conditions and the rules with which such services are governed. Needless to say that in case the employees belong to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the 1981 Regulations of the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 215 Board would be applicable qua them and for the employees who belong to Municipal Council, Ferozepur, would be governed by a different set of rules. There being no such clarity pleaded or available on record, the claim raised by the employees could not be entertained as a pre-existing right, claimable in terms of money by way of filing application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

370. There cannot be any dispute to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the maintainability of the application that it has to be treated as a recovery process in the execution proceedings and cannot be used first time to get the right declared regarding the entitlement of money claimed through the application. [see, para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment]

371. For the reasons recorded here-above, 23 writ petitions, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 452 to 472, 478 & 479 of Annexure ‘P’, are allowed and the orders impugned therein are hereby set aside. Resultantly the applications filed by the employees in these cases, i.e. under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are rendered meaningless. As result of above, remaining 5 writ petitions of this block/category, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 473 to 477 of Annexure ‘P’, i.e. CWP Nos. 06235, 06204, 06245, 06255 and 06725, all of 2015, filed by the employees are dismissed. Block/Category of Health Department, Punjab [Annexure: ‘Q’, total 01 case, Sr. No. 480]

372. In this Block/Category, there is only one case, i.e. CWP No. 27408 of 2016 (details of the case is mentioned at Sr. No. 480 of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 216 Annexure ‘Q’), filed by the Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar and others, against the order dated 05.01.2015, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, in Application No. 201 of 2007, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which was filed by the employees (respondent Nos. 1 to 28 herein), who were working as M.L.T.-I, M.L.T.-II, M.P.H.W. (M), M.P.H.W. (F), Class-IV, Staff Nurse, L.H.R., Driver, Pharmacist, in the Civil Hospital, Amritsar, and Tarn Taran, respectively.

373. Facts of this writ petition are that the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 initially filed CWP No. 7567 of 2003 (Gopal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others), with a prayer to grant pay/wages for extra work done by them on Saturdays. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench, vide order dated 16.05.2003 (Annexure P-1), in terms of the statement made by State counsel that the competent authority will consider the case of the employees and pass appropriate order with regard to the claim raised in CWP No. 7567 of 2003, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), which was also annexed with the said petition. In the order dated 16.05.2003 (Annexure P-1), Hon’ble Division Bench also specifically made it clear that the direction for consideration of the case in the light of the judgments and the averments made in the writ petition, be not construed as a direction per se for grant of relief. For ready reference, order dated 16.05.2003, passed in CWP No. 7567 of 2003, is reproduced as under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 217 “C.W.P No. 7567 of 2003 Gopal Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others Present:- Mr. RK Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. SWATANTER KUMAR, J (ORAL) Issue notice to show cause why petition be not admitted. Mr. Ashish Sharma, Assistant Advocate General Punjab accepts notice. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Arora learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the controversy involved in the present case is covered on facts and law by the judgment of this court as well as judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, copy thereof is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/3. He further contends that a specific averment has been made is no notification, Instructions or rule of the Government which enforces an obligation upon petitioners to work six days a week. In fact, the conditions of service of the employees who are getting salary without working on Saturday, are identical and similar to the petitioners. this petition stating In the circumstances afore-stated, learned counsel for the State fairly concedes that the competent authority shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order with regard to the claim raised herein and in the light of the judgment annexed to the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is brought to their notice. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. The respondents shall abide by their statement. Before we part with the file. We make it clear that the direction for consideration of the case of the petitioners in light of the judgements and the averments made in the writ petition, is not a direction per se for grant of relief. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 218 Sd/- SWATANTER KUMAR JUDGE Sd/- MEHTAB S. GILL JUDGE

16.05.2003”

374. Thereafter, the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, being the competent authority, passed order No. E7(3) Punjab:2004/3023, dated 16.07.2004 (Annexure P-2T), and rejected the claim of the employees, after giving the reasoning that the working hours of the employees posted in Government Hospitals, Primary Health Centers, Community Health Centers, Dispensaries and other health establishments etc. where clinical services are provided in the State of Punjab, are from

8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. in summer and from 9.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. in winters, whereas there is different working schedule of the employees working on Clerical/administrative side, who work from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. It was also observed that keeping in view the health services for general public, the employees of Government Hospital / Dispensaries / Primary Health Centers, are deployed for emergency duties even on gazetted holidays. For ready reference, translated version of the order dated 16.07.2004, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2T with the writ petition, is reproduced as under:- “Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab Chandigarh OFFICE ORDER No. E7(3) Punjab:2004/3023 Dated:16/07/2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 219 Sh. Gopal Singh, Medical Laboratory Technician & others had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 7567 of 2003 in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. In this writ petition the petitioners prayed that the employees who are posted at Civil Hospital/Dispensaries/Primary Health Centers have to give duty on Saturday. Like this they work for 06 days in a week. Even they have to do duty on Gazetted holidays. They are not given any compensation for this. In this writ petition, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court passed the following order vide its order dated 16.05.2003. In the circumstances afore-stated, learned counsel for the State fairly concedes that the competent authority shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order with regard to the claim raised herein and in the light of the judgment annexed to the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is brought to their notice. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. The respondents shall abide by their statement. Before we part with the file. We make it clear that the direction for consideration of the case of the petitioners in light of the judgements and the averments made in the writ petition, is not a direction per se for grant of relief.” The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated

15.03.2000 has cleared as per the followings: “Even if the State Government employees had enjoyed the said benefit during the relevant calendar year but if the Municipal Committees had promulgated, at the relevant time, any bye-law under which the working conditions of the staff members were uniformly prescribed to be six days in a week, then, the question of granting any monetary benefit to the appellants would not survive. On the other hand if there was no such bye-law at the relevant time, then the appellants would be entitled to claim wages for the Saturdays on which they have actually worked when their colleagues in the offices had not worked and had enjoyed benefit of closed Saturdays.” It is also informed here that the working hours /Dispensaries/Primary Health of Government Hospital Centres are fixed from 08.00 AM to 02.00 PM in Summer PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 220 and form 8.30 Am to 2.00 Pm in winters. Similarly the government has fixed the working hours of Employees of Government offices form 09.00 AM to 05.00 PM. Like this the working hours of the employees of Government Offfices are different from the working hours of employees of Government Hospital/ Dispensaries/ Primary Health Centres. Keeping in view the health Service of General of Government Hospital Public /Dispensaries/Primary Health Centers emergency duties even on gazetted Holidays. are deployed for employees Due to the above explained circumstances the employees of Government Hospital/Dispensaries/Primary Health Centres cannot be granted compensation for their duties performed on Saturday and Gazetted Holidays, as per the order dated 15.03.2000 passed by the Apex court, as the working hours of employees of Government Hospital / Dispensaries / Primary Health Centres are different from the working hours of other employees of Government offices, keeping in view the Health Services provided to the General Public. They cannot be given any compensation for these duties. This demand of petitioners is hereby declined. Sd/- Davinderpal Singh Sandhu, Director, Health and family welfare, Punjab Endorsement No. E7(3) Punjab:2004/3024-26 Dated, Chandigarh: 16/07/2004 Copy to:- 1. Principal Secretary Punjab Government, Health and Family Welfare Department “Branch Health-5” Chandigarh in accordance to Government Memo No. 06/46/2003-1 Health 5/1909 Dated 23.01.2004

2. Civil Surgeon, Amritsar/Fathegarh Sahib, information and necessary action. Sd/- Joint Director (Admn.) For Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab” Thus, while passing the said order, the competent authority has specifically considered the claim of the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 herein, in light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 221 Sirhind’s case (supra), and by giving specific reasoning distinguishing their case, rejected the same.

375. Without challenging the order dated 16.07.2004, whereby the claim of the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 was declined by the competent authority, the aforementioned employees filed a application, bearing Application No. 201 of 2007, dated 01.08.2007, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, i.e. after about three years of passing of the order dated

16.07.2004. In the said application, the employees/applicants did not disclose the fact of rejecting of their claim. The application was filed even without impleading all the necessary parties.

376. The mischief, concealment and making a wrong statement by the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, while filing application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is discernible from the opening para of the impugned order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P-3), wherein the claim made by the applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, and the same reads as under:- “ ……It is also stated that during the employment, applicants had worked on each and every Saturday in spite of having holidays; that all the applicants are entitled to recover the amount of Saturdays on the overtime rate basis; that previously the applicants had also filed a CWP No. 7567 of 2003 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as Gopal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose of the same with the directions to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order with regard to the judgement attached to the writ petition i.e. Municipal Employees Union (Registered) Sirhind and other Vs. State of Punjab and others, in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order is brought to their notice. The certified copy was PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 222 delivered to the management but till today nothing has been paid to the applicants in view of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is further stated that since the applicants have served the Saturdays, as such they are entitled to get the amount for the period which they worked with the department; that the applicants made a request to the respondents to make the payment, but they have failed to make the payment. Lastly, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the amount of Saturdays since May, 2000 amounting to Rs. 4,22,849/-, after calculation as per the service records of the applicants, till date along with interest and costs in the ends of justice and equity of law.”

377. While responding to the said application, the Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar, and Civil Hospital, Amritsar (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein) raised preliminary objections regarding non-maintainability of the application and non-joinder of proper parties. On merits, it was pleaded before the Tribunal that the applicants are governed by the Punjab CSR; they are 24 hours servants of the State; and they are paid salaries even for Saturdays and Sundays. Thus, no question arises for grant of extra wages/compensation for the work done by them on Saturdays and Sundays. Their duty hours are spread over six days which means they have to perform duty for 37 ‰ hours in a week. The case of the applicants is not similar to those employees who work in Government offices.

378. Perusal of the impugned order also reveals that the applicants, not only concealed about passing of the order dated

16.07.2004 (Annexure P-2T), whereby their claim was declined by the competent authority. Rather, the department/petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were also remiss in bringing the said fact to the notice of the Tribunal. Even, on 04.02.2010, they were proceeded against ex parte. Subsequently, the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 223 Chief Medical Officer, Tarn Taran was arrayed as respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, and an amended application was also filed.

379. In the evidence, except for tendering of affidavit Ex. W.1 by Gopal Singh (respondent No. 1 herein), nothing else was adduced to prove that the applicants have any pre-existing right to claim extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays and Sundays. Rather, in his cross-examination, Gopal Singh admitted that ministerial staff work from 9.00 a.m. to 5 p.m. with half an hour break. Even no material evidence was produced by the Chief Medical Officer, Tarn Taran.

380. Without discussing much, the Industrial Tribunal rushed to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to receive the amounts as per particulars mentioned in the annexure filed by them with the application alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of application till realization. Accordingly, allowed the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Para Nos. 11 to 16 of the impugned order dated 05.01.2015, are reproduced as under:- “Issues No. 1 and 2

11. Both these issues, being interlinked, are taken up together.

12. Learned authorized representative for the applicants has argued that the matter has been decided up till Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Municipal Corporation is duty bound to pay the amount of Saturday on which the applicants had worked with Chief Medical Officer / Amritsar / Tarn Taran. Learned authorized representative for the applicants has further argued that all these fact are proved from the evidence on file and, as such, the application be allowed. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 224

13. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for respondent No.3 has argued that the applicants have already got pay from the office of the respondent and they are not eligible for amount for Saturday. The Learned representative for the respondent No. 3 has further argued that this application is false and, as such, the same be dismissed.

14. WWI Gopal Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.W.1, wherein he has deposed as per his application. In the cross- examination, he has stated that he does not know if he has to work for six days in a week under rules. He has admitted that ministerial staff from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m, with half an hour break.

15. On the other hand RW1 Dr. Gurmeet Singh Tendered his affidavit Ex R.1, Wherein he has deposed that applicant were working on regular basis as per Punjab State Civil Service Rules and the employees are 24 hours servants of Punjab Govt., and they are paid salary even for Saturdays and Sundays. RW2 Dr. Sat Pal also tendered his affidavit Ex. RW2/A, in which he has deposed that applicants are working on regular basis as per Punjab State Civil Service Rules and the employees are 24 hours servant of Punjab Government and they are paid salary even for Saturdays and Sunday. Hence, there is no question of recovery for Saturday and Sunday so, this case is maintainable. Applicants are entitled to receive the amounts as per particulars mentioned in annexure filed by them with their application along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till realization. So both these issues are held in favour of the applicants and against the respondents. Relief. In view of my findings on the foregoing issues, the 16. application is accepted and the applicants are held entitled to claim the amount of Rs. 4,22,849/- as per particular mentioned in Annexure filed by them along with their application along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it has accrued till realization of the payment. The respondents are directed to make the payment to the applicants, after calculation as per the service records of the applicants, within two months after passing of the order. No order as to costs. Reader of this Tribunal is directed to forward three copies of this order to Assistant labour Commissioner/Labour-cum-Conciliation officer, Amritsar, as required under section 33-C(4) of the I.D. Act read with PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 225 Notification No S.O. 1.10.2008. File be consigned to record room.” 66/С.A.14/1947/S.17/2008 dt.

381. Without challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal, vide which petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded again ex parte, present CWP No. 27408 of 2016 has been filed on their behalf, as well as by the Chief Medical Officer, Tarn Taran.

382. In para No. 4 of the writ petition, there is specific averment regarding passing of order dated 16.07.2004, by the competent authority, declining the claim of the employees/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, to which one line reply has been given by the said respondents in their response dated 06.10.2020, which says – “4. That para 4 of the petition is also matter of record.” In the very next para of the written statement, an attempt has been made to justify the course adopted by the employees in filing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, instead of challenging the aforementioned order dated 16.07.2004. Para No. 5 of the aforementioned reply, is reproduced as under:- “5. That para 5 of the petition is replied in this way that though the respondents have not filed another writ petition challenging the order of the petitioners in compliance of the order passed in earlier writ petition. However, the application filed by them under section 33C is well within the pale of parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment mentioned supra.”

383. From the narration of facts of the present writ petition, no doubt is left that the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 were very much aware of the rejection of their claim of extra wages for working on Saturdays and Sundays. But they opted not to challenge the order dated PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 226

16.07.2004 (Annexure P-2/T). After a long slumber of about three years, waking up on a fine day, they decided to try their luck once again, by making a vague attempt. Accordingly, devised a novel idea of filing a joint application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, under the guise of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), by concealing the fact of already rejection of their alleged right. Not only this, even the employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28 have succeeded in the said attempt when the Tribunal has passed an evasive and erroneous order in their favour. It is settled principle of law that no relief can be granted to a litigant who does not approach the Court with clean hands and deliberately conceal/withhold material facts from the Court. This principle very much applies to the case of the employees herein. Accordingly, this writ petition can be allowed on this score alone.

384. It is specific case of the petitioners herein that the employees were appointed on regular basis and governed under the Punjab CSR. They are government servants for 24 hours, and salary is being paid to them on monthly basis, including Saturdays and Sundays. It is nobody’s case that the salary is paid to the employees for the actual working days only and, therefore, having taken work from them on Saturdays or Sundays, they are entitled for extra wages. It is also pleaded that the duty hours of the employees/applicants are fixed for 6 hours a day for 6 days i.e. 36 hours per week, whereas the other employees who are working on administrative side, have to work 8 hours a day for 5 days i.e. 40 hours a PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 227 week. Therefore, the claim of the employees was pleaded to be not tenable in the eye of law.

385. Without dealing with such an assertation taken in reply and even in the statement of official witness RW1 - Dr. Gurmeet Singh and rather without examining the Punjab CSR, the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act has been allowed by the Tribunal solely by assuming that the rights of the employees are completely covered with the observation made in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court declared the Clerks of the Octroi Department as forming one group, their services being governed by one set of rules, sharing one seniority list, as also the ingredient of inter-transfer of service i.e. from office staff to the field staff and vice versa was there. Such analogy or even the statement of law, i.e. not to cause discrimination amongst equals, is not available employees/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, who filed the application in the present case.

386. Needless to repeat again that as per Rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, a government employee is at the disposal of the Government, which pays him, and can be appointed in any manner as per the authority, without claim or extra remuneration but of course for working a particular set of hours per day, as per service rules.

387. For the reasons recorded hereabove, this Court does not find any accruing legal right of the employees/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, in consonance with the decision of Sirhind’s case (supra). Therefore, with the strength of the reasons recorded here-above, and left with no PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 228 other option, CWP No. 27408 of 2016 stands allowed. Accordingly the impugned order dated 05.01.2015, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, is set aside. Resultantly, Application No. 201 of 2007, filed by the employees/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 28, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is rendered meaningless. Block/Category of Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab [Annexure: ‘R’, Total 02 cases, Sr. Nos. 481 & 482]

388. In this Block/category, there are 2 writ petitions, filed by the employer(s) (details of cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure ‘R’), against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana (in CWP No. 09306 of 2014) and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (in CWP No. 22791 of 2016), vide which the respective applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees have been allowed.

389. The workers in these cases are employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab. They were working as Cattle Attendant, Beldar, Agriculture Beldar, Tractor Driver, Class-IV, Milk Recorder, Junior Technician, Pig Attendant, Sheep Attendant, Bull Attendant, Agriculture Development Officer, Lab Attendant, Carpenter, Sweeper, Attendant, Veterinary Officer, Chowkidar, and Blacksmith, and discharging their field duty at Animal Husbandry (Farms), Mattewara, Ludhiana; and Animal Husbandry (Farms), Nabha, Patiala, during the relevant point of time.

390. The aforementioned set of employees approached the Tribunal(s) by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 229 seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays, prima facie, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra).

391. Primarily on two grounds the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the said employees, have been allowed in regard to the claim of extra wages/compensation for having worked on Saturdays – (i) As per Sirhind’s case (supra) the field staff has already been ordered by the Hon’ble Apex Court to be entitled for extra wages for Saturday working; and (ii) As per notification dated 07.04.1980 circulated by the State of Punjab, there are five working days in a week and two holidays/off days.

392. From the record, it does not appear that the parameters which were before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of employees whose rights were under consideration in Sirhind’s case (supra) were demonstrated by the employees through the applications in question or any such material was brought on record to say that the field staff of the employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, is having equal treatment in regard to the service conditions and other parameters with office staff employees and, thus, on the basis of parity, they can be awarded the same benefit of extra wages.

393. This Court has already noticed number of times that the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is maintainable only for recovery of the money, which the employer is liable to pay to the employee. The said proposition of law is being followed on regular basis PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 230 by the Courts without any doubt by following the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Central Bank of India (supra). Specific and elaborate discussions made in para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment, may also be read herein.

394. First of all, there is no such declaration ever obtained by the employees/applicants who are claiming their rights for recovery of the extra wages for having worked on Saturdays. Even, there is no pleading in the applications that with what kind of rules their services are governed. None of the applicants has even pleaded that as per rules/service conditions, for how many days they are required to work in a week being posted for field duties since inception of joining the service. Even there is neither any pleading nor any piece of evidence available on record that they are being treated differently than the employees of the office staff, though they are entitled for the equal treatment.

395. The applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act have been allowed by learned Tribunal, vide impugned orders herein, merely on the assumption that the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the employees in Sirhind’s case (supra), who were working with the Octroi Department, has made it obligatory over the State of Punjab to pay the extra wages for working on Saturday to each and every employee of the State.

396. Another aspect issuance of notification dated

07.04.1980, vide which the five working days in a week were declared. After examination of the record, this Court has found that the said notification dated 07.04.1980, was later on supplemented by the State of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 231 Punjab, by way of specific clarification, vide Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated 02.03.1994, which was issued in partial modification of another notification No. 6/18/79/GE(6)/10898, dated

06.09.1979. As per the clarification in the said circular dated 02.03.1994, the field staff was asked to work for six days in a week. In other words, only one day i.e. Sunday, was meant as holiday/off day for them. The letter is silent about the employees working in the offices. Surprisingly, said letter has never been highlighted by the employees nor by the State Government. However, this Court cannot shut its eyes while deciding the controversy by ignoring the letter dated 02.03.1994. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the rights of the employees qua extra wages/compensation for working on Saturdays, is to be considered solely on the basis of the Punjab Government’s notification dated 07.04.1980.

397. This Court has also taken note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) and the background of the facts therein, and found that no such similarity of facts or the principle of law is made out in the present block/category of writ petitions to reach out to the conclusion that the employees of the Animal Husbandry Department, who filed the applications, have similar rights as of the Octroi Department in the State of Punjab.

398. Broadly speaking, without demonstration of the service conditions and the rules by which their services are governed, it is impossible to even claim that they have any preexisting right. Therefore, in view of the reasons recorded hereabove, this Court is firm in reaching PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 232 to the conclusion that the impugned orders passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana (in CWP No. 09306 of 2014) and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (in CWP No. 22791 of 2016), are not worth to sustain.

399. Thus, by allowing both the writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure ‘R’), the orders impugned therein are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are meaningless. Block/Category of Sainik Welfare, Punjab [Annexure: ‘S’, total 01 case, Sr. No. 483]

400. In this block/category, there is only one case, i.e. CWP No. 15817 of 2016 (details of the case mentioned at Sr. No. 483 of Annexure ‘S’), which has been filed by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar & another, against the order dated 24.05.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, in Application No. 168 of 2009, under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, which was filed by Tarsem Lal s/o Jai Ram, who was working as a Welfare Worker-cum-Clerk, in the office of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar.

401. In his application, under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act, the said employee (respondent No. 1 in the writ petition) pleaded that in the month of April, 2004, he was appointed as Welfare Worker-cum-Clerk in the office of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar, on contract basis, on monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-. On 08.02.2006, he was appointed on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200, after due selection process. According to the employee, provisions of the Punjab CSR were applicable in the said department. And, as such he was entitled to the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 233 benefit of, off on Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays. It is alleged that the employee was compelled by the District Sainik Welfare Officer to perform their duty on Saturday and some times on holidays. It was also pleaded by the said employee that the department is running various courses and trainees have to pay heavy charges for the same. Besides this, the department also earns from Sainik Rest House and shops given on rent. Despite making requests for payment of dues for performing duty on Saturdays and holidays and releasing the arrears of revised pay w.e.f. January, 2006, the department failed to pay the same on one pretext or the other. Thus, the employee claimed that he is entitled to estimated amount of Rs. 1,43,983 alongwith interest.

402. In the written statement, the department pleaded before the Industrial Tribunal that the employee/applicant was appointed on 89 days basis as Welfare Worker and not as Welfare Worker-cum-Clerk. He applied for the post of Welfare Clerk against the open advertisement by the department at Chandigarh, wherein he was selected as Welfare Worker in the scale of Rs. 4020-6200, and joined as such on 10.02.2006. On 22.07.2008, he was posted in the office of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Mansa. As per rule 3.10 of the Punjab CSR, the employee was a full time employee and in the said rules, there is no provision for rest as stated in the application. However, entitlement of the employee/applicant for dues on account of revision of pay scales, from 01.01.2006 to

31.07.2009, was admitted. It was denied that no official work on Sunday and holidays unless there is a special requirement. As regard the allegation of earning of the department from imparting of various types of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 234 training and charging from students, it has been stated that most of the pre-training is imparted on free-ship basis and the department is not a commercial or profit making organization. The rent of the rest house rooms are fixed by the Government and the income is deposited to the Directorate. It has also been clarified that on Saturdays, the field staff carries out their left over jobs. The employee/applicant was also doing bonafide government duty, for which he was not entitled to honorarium, as he was a whole time government servant. And, whenever there is official requirement, all the whole time government employees are supposed to discharge their duties.

403. A rejoinder to the written statement was also filed by the employee/applicant, wherein by reasserting his version as in the application, denied the stand taken by the department. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Industrial Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the arrears of revised pay scale wages for duty performed on Saturdays and other holidays? OPA

2. Relief.”

404. To prove his case, the employee/applicant himself appeared as AW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. A1 and documents as Exs. WW1/1 to WW1/75. On the other hand, the department examined Jatinder Kumar, Superintendent, as RW1, who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Exs. R-1 to R-9. Also examined Jaswinder Singh, Superintendent as RW2, who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW2/A; and PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 235 Vikas Kumar, Senior Assistant, as RW3, who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW3/A and documents Exs. RW3/1 & RW3/2.

405. During the course of arguments, authorized representative of the employee/applicant had restricted the claim for payment of extra wages for Saturdays and Sunday only, and did not press for any other claim. Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the claim for performing duty on 73 holidays, i.e. 58 Saturdays and 15 Sundays from June, 2006 to March, 2008, i.e. for an amount of Rs.261000/- + Rs.6750/-.

406. For deciding the objection raised by the department that it is not covered under the definition of ‘Industry’, as per the provisions of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal after referring to para No. 163 of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, 1978 (1) LLJ 349 : Law Finder Doc Id # 105181, answered the same in favour of the employee/applicant. The Tribunal also cited the judgments in the cases of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and another v. Attar Singh and others, 2000 Lab. L.C. 853, and Philadelphia Missiona Hospital v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another, 2004 (4) SCT 761 : Law Finder Doc Id # 78776.

407. After examining evidence produced employees/applicant, Ex. WW1/3 to WW1/74, the Tribunal found that he performed duty on 58 Saturdays and 15 Sundays. The employee/applicant also proved that no compensatory leave was given to him in lieu of duty performed on Saturdays and Sundays. Even in his cross-examination, Jatinder Kumar, who was produced by the department PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 236 as RW1, admitted that Ex. WW1/15 are office letters, and Ex. WW1/16 to Ex. WW1/14 are regarding tour programmes of the employee/applicant. The other witness, namely, Jaswinder Singh, RW2 also deposed in his cross-examination that there are no instructions that they can call any official on Saturday and other holidays. As per notification of Punjab Government, dated 07.04.1980, Punjab Government offices shall remain closed on all the Saturdays.

408. In this manner, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the employee/applicant worked on Saturdays and Sundays and entitled to wages for performing duty on such days. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the case of Niranjan Dass (supra). Accordingly, the Tribunal held the employee/applicant entitled to wages amounting to Rs. 32,850/-, for performing duty on Saturdays and Sundays, by allowing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Hence, the present writ petition.

409. In the writ petition, the stand taken by the department is that prior to 10.02.2006, the employee (respondent No. 1 herein) was working on contractual basis, and worked intermittently from April, 2004 to January, 2006, with breaks from time to time. His services were terminated during probation period, account misconduct/inefficiency, because after 17.03.2008 he suddenly proceeded on leave and never reported back for duty thereafter. The petitioner- department is not a profit making agency and does not fall within the ambit of the ID Act and the Tribunal erred in law in applying the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 237 judgment in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), because the dominant nature of tests prescribed in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the petitioner-department is rendering services for the welfare of armed forces personnel, war widows, their children and dependents.

410. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.08.2016, the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court: Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to “ find out whether workman has worked on Saturdays or not and if he has worked on Saturdays whether is he entitled for admissible salary. List this matter on 06.09.2016” Thereafter, a short affidavit, dated 01/07.11.2016, was filed by the District Defence Services Welfare Officer, Jalandhar, and para Nos. 2 to 4 thereof reads as under:- “2. That respondent No. 1 was appointed as Welfare Worker on probation in the office of Petitioner No. 1 on 10.02.2006 and he worked upto 17.03.2008, when he suddenly proceeded on leave and never reported back for duty thereafter. That during said probation period, respondent No. 1 3. worked mainly in the Field for implementing Government policies for martyr’s families, veterans, their widows and dependents and on Saturday he carried on his own left over official pending work being designated to him as field officer.

4. That no official work given to the respondent No. 1 on Saturday except he attended only official meeting organized for Half an hour for National Flag Day Celebration for the welfare of Martyr’s families and their dependents, who sacrifice their lives for the defence of the motherland. He was officially called upon to attend office PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 238 only for these days. On other occasions he came to attend office to complete his left over work.”

411. In the case in hand, the employee/respondent No. 1 has based his claim on the basis of Punjab Government’s notification dated

07.04.1980, whereby it was notified for the first time that Punjab Government offices shall remain closed on all the Saturdays. As per own saying by the employee, the provisions of the Punjab CSR were applicable to him. However, the employees has nowhere disclosed about the other details, such as office structure, cadre strength, seniority etc., of his Service. It is also not his case that some of the co-workers were enjoying holidays on Saturdays and Sundays, and only he was made to work on such days.

412. In so far the scope of invoking of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and exercise of jurisdiction under it by the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, elaborate discussions have already been made in para Nos. 14 to 17, 326 and 327 of this judgment, and the view point taken by this Court can safely be borrowed and applied to the facts of the present case. To avoid repetition, the same is not mentioned here again.

413. It was incumbent upon the employee/respondent No. 1 to plead and prove that a pre-existing right to claim extra wages for working on Saturdays/holidays, was determined/declared in his favour, failing which he cannot approach the Tribunal under Section the provisions of 33C(2) of the ID Act. Thus, the Court/Labour Court would not be having jurisdiction to exercise its powers by virtue of provision of law, i.e. Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 239

414. Moreover, as per affidavit, dated 01/07.11.2016, specific stand of the petitioners/department is that the employee/respondent No. 1 was never assigned official work on Saturday, and he only attended official meetings organized for half an hour for National Flag Day Celebration for the welfare of Martyr’s families and their dependents. He carried on his own left over official pending work on Saturdays. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that it was part and parcel of the duties of the employee/respondent No. 1, being a Welfare Worker, to perform duty in the field and he cannot escape from the same.

415. Having considered aforementioned circumstances of the present case, it can be safely concluded that the employee/respondent No. 1 cannot approach the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, for determination of his right to claim extra wages for performing duty on Saturdays/holidays. The Industrial Tribunal has erred in law to consider this aspect of the matter and exceeded its jurisdiction in determining the right of the employee/applicant, while allowing the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Resultantly, CWP No. 15817 of 2016 succeeds, and the impugned order dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the employee/respondent No. 1 to avail his alternative remedy, if any, available to him, in accordance with law, if so advised. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 240 Block/Category of Punjab Mandi Board [Annexure: ‘T’, Total 21 cases, Sr. Nos. 484 to 504]

416. In this Block/Category, there are 21 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure ‘T’), filed by the Punjab Mandi Board, against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, as well as Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, vide which the respective applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees have been allowed.

417. The workers in these cases are employees of the Punjab Mandi Board and were posted at different places such as Malerkotla, Sangrur, Patiala, Chandigarh, Faridkot, Ferozepur and Muktsar. They were working as Chowkidar, Helper, Sewerman, Fiitter, Coollie, T/Mate, Plumber, Pump Operator, Supervisor, Survey Khalasi, Junior Engineer, Driver, and Electrician, during the relevant point of time.

418. The relevant provisions of the statutory rules, vide which various employees of the Punjab Mandi Board are governed, have already been discussed and reproduced in para Nos. 144 to 151 of this judgment. i.e. (i) The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class III) Service Rules, 1989; (ii) The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989; (iii) the Punjab Market Committees (Class III) Service Rules, 1989; and PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 241 (iv) The Punjab Market Committees (Class IV) Service Rules, 1989

419. It would be relevant to mention here that various posts/cadres of Class III (now Group ‘C’) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board have been specifically bifurcated into two broad categories i.e. (i) ‘Technical’ and (ii) ‘Non-Technical’ posts, and seniority of the employees is determined separately and cadrewise. Meaning thereby, if the cadre of the members within one Service is different, then their separate seniority shall have to be fixed cadre-wise. Even, a member of the Service shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab. In furtherance of the said rules, the provisions of the Punjab CSR are also applicable to them.

420. Likewise, seniority of the Class IV (now Group D) employees of the Punjab Mandi Board, i.e. Daftri, Jamadar, Chowkidar Peon/ Library Attendant, Peon-cum-Chowkidar, Sweeper, Head Mali, Helper, Beldar and Ferro Khalasi, is also determined post/cadrewise, and they are liable to serve at any place, whether within or out of the State of Punjab on being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. The provisions of the Punjab CSR are also applicable to them.

421. Like the writ petitions of other blocks/categories, which have already been dealt with by this Court in the earlier part of this judgment, the aforementioned employees of present block/category, i.e. Punjab Mandi Board (for details see Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure ‘T’), also approached the Tribunal(s) by filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Such applications were filed on the strength of one or other PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 242 order passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the writ petitions filed by the employees, e.g. CWP No. 20174 of 2003 and CWP No. 16541 of 2003, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturday, on the basis of notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra) and judgment in Sirhind’s case (supra).

422. Contesting the said claim, it was pleaded on behalf of the Punjab Mandi Board that the services of the applicants/employees, who are posted as field staff and those who are posted as office staff, are governed by different set of rules and their posts are not inter-changeable. Even their working hours are also different. It is pleaded in specific that the categories of Sewerman, Pump Operator, Plumber, Fitter, Coollie etc. are not transferable with the employees working in the office. The nature and functions of the Punjab Mandi Board are akin to the Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab. The employees are receiving their salary for the entire months including Saturdays and Sundays. Even, the notification dated 07.04.1980, is applicable only qua employees of office staff, because it nowhere talks about its applicability to the employees of the field staff.

423. The Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, and Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, have allowed the applications filed by the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board mainly on the premise that the order dated

11.06.2003, passed by the competent authority of the Punjab Mandi Board, thereby rejecting the claim of the employees for benefit of extra wages for working on Saturdays and Sundays, was set aside by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in CWP No. 16541 of 2003, vide PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 243 judgment dated 19.07.2005 (supra). It seems that without carefully reading the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra), the said Tribunals assumed that the judgment dated 19.07.2005 passed in CWP No. 16541 of 2003, has attained finality and the right of the employees stand determined. In this way, the Tribunals allowed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, in present set of writ petitions.

424. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, has appeared in these 21 writ petitions, on behalf of the Punjab Mandi Board, whereas in some of the writ petitions Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, defended the cases of the employees. Their respective arguments have already been noticed and dealt with by this Court in para Nos. 175 to 184 and 200 to 209, respective, and need not to be reiterated here again.

425. Own admitted case of the employees/applicants/respondents herein is that they were deputed as field staff as a part and parcel of duty attached to their Service. There is no denial that their seniorities and postings are separate from office staff, and neither the field staff can be transferred or posted in the offices, nor the office staff can be deployed for, in the field for carrying out various types of job, some of which are technical in nature. Thus, nature of duties of the employees/applicants herein is different. The broad stand taken by the Punjab Mandi Board before the Tribunals as well as before this Court is that there is no inter-changeability between the field staff and office staff employees of the Punjab Mandi Board. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 244

426. In these 21 writ petitions, the employees / applicants / respondents herein, have primarily relied upon the notification dated

07.04.1980, whereby instead of two Saturdays in month, it was decided by the State of Punjab that all the four Saturdays in a month would be treated as Holidays. The applicants/employees have also relied upon the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), thereby disposing of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) and submitted that they are entitled for extra wages for their working on Saturdays. However, in the applications filed by the employees, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, there appears to be no details as to how they could seek equating their claim, with the employees who were parties in Sirhind’s case (supra).

427. The employees were also required to lead evidence to the effect that their services are inter-transferable, they have a common seniority list and are governed by one set of rules. Learned Tribunals have not gone into the said aspect and perhaps were convinced with the judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nirbhai Singh’s case (supra), while drawing a presumption that the employees are eligible to extra wages for working on Saturdays at par with employees working in the Octroi department, whose rights were dealt with by the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). However, such a presumption is unsustainable because the party who alleges a particular fact is casted with a duty to prove the same by leading positive/affirmative evidence in that regard. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, the right or entitlement of the employees cannot be created first time by the Court. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 245

428. Not only this, as already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment (refer para No. 154), Memo. No. J.M/ANKA(2)74/9775, dated

429. The argument of the employees claiming right of extra wages for working on Saturdays on the strength of the notification dated

07.04.1980 (supra), issued by the State of Punjab and the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), is not enough to derive any right, which may be called as pre-existing right, for starting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, pleaded case of the Punjab Mandi Board in these writ petitions is that there is neither any common seniority list nor the services are inter-transferable.

430. Thus, this Court is constrained to reach to the conclusion that the conditions of Service of the employees involved in the writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure ‘T’), who were/are working as field staff employees in the Punjab Mandi Board, are entirely different and not comparable with the employees in Octroi Department, whose rights were subject matter in Sirhind’s case (supra).

431. Hence, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in 21 writ petitions (mentioned at PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 246 Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure ‘T’), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the said writ petitions are allowed, and the applications filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Block/Category of Irrigation Department, Punjab [Annexure: ‘U’, Total 07 cases, Sr. Nos. 505 to 511]

432. In this Block/category, there are total 07 writ petitions, out of which 6 have been filed by the Irrigation Department, Punjab (detail of cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 of Annexure ‘U’), challenging the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Industrial Tribunal, Patiala. One writ petition i.e. CWP No. 20647 of 2015 (detail mentioned at Sr. No. 511 of Annexure ‘U’), has been filed by the employees against the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur.

433. Employees in the writ petition mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 of Annexure ‘U’, which have been filed by the Department, were/are working as Beldar, Sweeper, and Boatman, and posted at Ferozepur and Bara Khua, Patiala. And the employees/petitioners in CWP No. 20647 of 2015, were/are working as Research Assistant/Research Officer, Lab Attendant and Assistant Lab Attendant, and posted at Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, at the relevant point of time.

434. The aforementioned set of employees approached the Tribunal(s) by filing applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, seeking benefit of extra wages for working on Saturday, prima facie, on the basis of the notification dated 07.04.1980 (supra) and in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 247

435. While examining these writ petitions, this Court has come across one detailed order dated 23.07.2003, issued vide Office Order No. 366/5NGE-II/2003,

24.07.2003, passed the Chief Engineer/KAD, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh, and copy of which is available on the file of CWP No. 25518 of 2012 as Annexure P-3. Perusal of the aforementioned order dated 23/24.07.2003, reveals that the same has been passed in compliance of the order dated 31.10.2002, passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in CWP No. 17640 of 2002, whereby a direction was given to the respondents in the said writ petition, to consider the representation filed by the petitioners and decide the same in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). The order dated

31.10.2002, passed in CWP No. 17640 of 2002, was also followed and applied subsequently in various other writ petitions, numbers of which have been given in the order dated 23/24.07.2003, passed by the Chief Engineer. The detailed order dated 23/24.07.2003 (Annexure P-3 attached with CWP No. 25518 of 2012), uncovers various aspects of these 7 writ petitions and also bring to fore some of the facts, which were never disclosed or pleaded by the employees in the writ petitions filed by them before this Court or in the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed subsequently before the Tribunals. Though the aforementioned order dated 23/24.07.2003, is lengthy, but for the just decision of these 7 writ petition, it is imperative for this Court to reproduce the same hereunder:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 248 “PUNJAB P.W.D. IRRIGATION BRANCH HEAD OFFICE CHANDIGARH OFFICE ORDER No. 366/5NGE-11/2003 Dated 24.7.2003 Whereas the P.W.D Field and Workshop Workers Union Punjab (Regd.) Branch Amritsar through its President Mohinder Singh Bedi had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 17773 of 2002 before the Hon’ble High Court versus State of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 18827 of 2002 Balwinder Singh and Others versus State of Punjab, No. 18988 of 2002 Desa Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab, No. 18954 of 2002, 18955 of 2002-Gurmail Singh Versus State of Punjab, 1087 of 2002-Bakshi Ram and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others, 18605 of 2002-Tilak Ram and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others, 18490 of 2002-Gurdial Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab, 4004 of 2003-Sham Lal Versus U.O.I. and Punjab State, 1816 of 2003-Balwinder Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab, 4167 of 2003- Rajvinder Singh Versus State of Punjab, 3855 of 2003- Gulzara Singh versus State of Punjab, 17959 of 2002-Kuldip Singh Versus State of Punjab, 19560 of 2002-Mangat Ram and Others Versus State of Punjab, 18590 of 2002-Gurbax Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab 18476 of 2002-Raj Pal and Others Versus State of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 5775 of 2003 Pawan Kumar and Others Versus State of Punjab, 4957 of 2003 Harish Chander and Others Versus State of Punjab, C.M. No. 37313 of 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 18988 of 2002. C.W.P. No. 6219/2002-Basant Lal & Others Vs. Pb State. The Hon’ble Court has passed the following orders as under:- C.W.P. No. 17773 of 2002 N.K. Sodhi. J (Oral) The facts of this case are similar to the facts in the civil writ petition No. 17640 of 2002 which was disposed of by us on October 31 of 2002. Same order as in Civil Writ Petition No. 17640 of

2002. November 1, 2002 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 249 Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, Judge, Sd/- S.S. Grewal, Judge The relevant portion of Civil Writ Petition No. 17640 of 2002 is reproduced as under:- After hearing counsel for the petitioners and having “ gone through the writ petition, we dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the Petitioners and decide the same in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. Petitioners may, if so advised, file a supplementary representation within two weeks from today and in case such a representation is filed, the same will also be heard and decided by the competent authority within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the petitioners are found entitled to any monetary benefits the same shall be released to them and also to other similarly situated employee, without any further delay. October 31, 2002 Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, Judge, Sd/- S.S. Grewal, Judge." Whereas the petitioners of the above mentioned writ petition are working as Beldar. Mate, Workmunshi, Workmistary Driver, Cleaner, Workmate, Painter and white washer etc. The petitioners have claimed for extra wages to be paid to them on account of being required to discharge duties for six working days in a week. They have stated that they are posted in the field wherein they have to attend their duty even on Saturday. The petitioners have based their claim on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Employees Union (Regd), Sirhind and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2000) 9 Supreme Court cases 432. Whereas in the above said judgement the main issue involved was regarding the clerks and peon working at the Octroi Check-post and barriers run by the Municipal functioning under Punjab Committees constituted and Municipal Act 1911 are entitled to be paid for each Saturday on which they have worked at the octroi check-post and barriers while their colleagues in the offices of Municipal Committee concerned were permitted staturdays as holidays. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a detailed judgment have held that the said employees working on octroi check-post and barriers are entitled for to enjoy PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 250 the extra wages for each of the Saturday on which they have worked while their colleagues enjoy the benefit of Saturdays. The petitioners have sought through the writ petition that the said judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is squarely covering the claim of the petitioners in this writ petition. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated......... has allowed the writ petition and directed the State of Punjab to follow the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as the rights of the petitioners stand settled vide the above said judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Whereas the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Employees Union (Regd) Sirhind and others (2000) 9 Supreme Court 432 relied by the Division Bench has no applicability at all in this case as there is no reality at all between the claim of the petitioners therein and those of the employees of the Municipal Committee. The distinguish features between the two set of employees namely: i) ii) iii) irrigation department Beldar, Mate, Workmunshi. Workmistary. Drivers, Cleaner, Workmate, Painter, white. washer etc. are only required to work in the field because these posts has been sanctioned for works of specific nature in the field for maintenance, repair and execution work. These employees are never posted in the offices and no such post exit in the offices. There is no equation of their post with the clerical staff and other office staff as in the case of octroi staff working in octroi check- post and barriers and office of the Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation etc. that transfer of these employees to the office and vice versa to the field is not permissible as there is no common cadre between the posts in the field as mentioned above and those in the offices. Thus, the petitioner herein the writ petition are a separate class and they are posted against the posts sanctioned for the specific work in the field and therefore their duties and hours of works are of different nature. that pleadings of the writ petition do not disclose at all any person belonging to the cadre to which the petitioners belong have been discharging duties for a period of five working days per week that is not required petitioners have not based their claim that the to work on Saturday. Above all PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 251 determination of wages payable to the petitioners are arbitrary in any manner nor is the case that similarly situated persons like the petitioners are working for lesser number of days and drawing the same emoluments. C.M. No. 37313 of 2002 in Civil writ petition No. 18988 of 2002 has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court on 29.11.2002. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swantantar Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta had passed the following orders: “Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocates, petitioners. Notice. Mr. Salil Sagar, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties concede that this matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.3.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1998 (Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others vs. State of Punjab and other) Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. Allowed in the same terms. November 29, 2002. Sd/- Swantanter Kumar, Judge Sd/- Hemant Gupta, Judge The petitioners are claiming on the basis of said order that their case has been considered in the light of the judgment dated 15.3.2000 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997-Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind Vs. State of Punjab and others as explained in the above foregoing paras. Whereas the petitioners in the present writ petitions are working in the irrigation department as mentioned above. Their duties are different from the Municipal Corporation employees. Their duties are on the workshop in the irrigation department and other field works as all members of worker/employee counterpart to the petitioners are working in the offices as in the case of clerk and peon in Municipal Committee as per judgment dated 15.3.2000 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997. Only weekly rest is available to these workers. Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1987 is concerning the clerks and peons PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 252 working in the offices and on the octroi check-posts. Therefore, it is very evident that the facts and circumstances of civil appeal No 8434 of 1997 are totally different from that of the matter in the present writ petitions belonging to Irrigation Department. Thus the judgment dated 15.3.2000 which was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 is not applicable in the case of petitioners, of Irrigation Department. Whereas, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project Work Charge Establishment issued Standing Orders 1988. These standing orders shall come into force in accordance with Section VII of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and shall be applicable to all workmen employed by the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project Shahpurkandi except those who are excluded from the purview of Act by virtue of the definition of the workmen and such other employees who are on deputation to the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project from various State Govt. Central Govt. or Electricity Board. The Standing orders rule 20 regarding weekly rest/ compensatory off. It is clearly mentioned in the said rule. The relevant portion of the said rule is reproduced as under-

20. A workman will be granted paid rest on a fixed week day. In the interest of work, rest day may be changed by the Sub Divisional Officer incharge at his discretion.

20.2 A workman who cannot be allowed weekly rest on the specified day or works overtime, shall be granted a compensatory off in lieu within 90 days.

20.3 A workman may be permitted to prefix and suffix National Festival day religious holidays with weekly rest/compensatory off Note:- WEEK MEANS AND INCLUDES THE DAYS FROM MONDAY TO SUNDAY. Secondly, the Deputy Labour Commissioner certifying Officer Punjab had issued standing order certification vide No. SO/8400 Dated 8.4.94 copy of the same to Mukerian Hydel Construction Division Talwara Township in pursuance of the requirement of the section 5 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946. The rule 19 of the standing orders regarding weekly rest is reproduced as under.-

19. WEEKLY REST:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 253 (1) A workmen will be granted paid rest in a fixed week day, if he has worked for 4 days or more in a week in conjunction with leave with or without wages. In the interest of work, fixed rest day may be changed by the SDO Incharge at his discretion. (2) A workman may be permitted to prefix and suffix, national and religious Holidays with weekly rest. (3) Rest in lieu of over time work on holidays, previous weekly rest deferred by the SDO incharge in the interest of the work and holidays on the national and religious occasions and leave with wages will be counted in arriving at four working days for the purpose of weekly rest. Whereas on the basis of said standing orders the workcharge employees of Irrigation Dept. are only eligible for weekly rest as per the said instructions. The extra holidays of Saturday and Sunday is not admissible as per said standing orders. Whereas the workman are working in the work of Irrigation department work for 8 hours regarding Dam constriction maintenance and repair of canals in the Punjab State. When than 8 hours they are working more compensatory leave is being given to them. Whereas, it is worthwhile to mention here that in addition to weekly rest which is being allowed in rotation to the worker the following holidays are also being provided to the workers in the calander year with full wages and allowances.- Republic day Birthday of Sh. Guru Ravidass Ji. Hola Baisakhi

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Martyrdom day of Sh. Guru Arjan Dev ji. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Birthday of Sh. Balmik Ji 11. Diwali. 12. Birthday of Sh. Guru Nanak Dev ji. 13. Ram Naumi Independent Day Janamashtmi Birthday of Mahatma Gandhi ji. Dushehra PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 254

14. Birthday of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is, pertinent to mention here that the decision meant for the employees of Municipal Committee/Corporation pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can not be adopted as a general policy for the employees/worker of the Irrigation Department. I undersigned have examined employees of Municipal Committee/Corporation with the Irrigation Deptt. and there is no similarity in both the workers. the case of The workers of the Irrigation Department are being allowed compensatory leave for the work done on Saturday etc. and other extra hours if so needed. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of any benefits in view of the judgement dated 15.3.2000 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997. So the claim of the petitioners has been considered and hereby rejected being devoid of any merit. Chandigarh Dated: 23.07.2003 Er. Jasbir Singh Chief Engineer/KAD Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh” In nutshell, after understanding the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in Sirhind’s case (supra) carefully and comparing the conditions of service, nature of duties, provisions of various standing orders, benefits like compensatory leaves and other holidays etc., which are applicable to the employees of the Irrigation Department, Punjab, vis- (cid:224)-vis the employees of the Octroi Department of Municipalities; the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, passed a well reasoned speaking order dated 23/24.07.2003, for rejecting the claim of the employees working in the Irrigation Department. Moreover, nothing is forthcoming on record, whether the said order was ever challenged or set aside at a later stage. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 255

436. It is also not the case that the aforementioned order dated 23/24.07.2003, was not brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal. For example, para 14 of the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, which is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 25518 of 2012, is reproduced as under:- “14. It has further been submitted by Sh. Krishan Lal, Jr. Assistant, representing the respondents that case of similarly situated employees was considered by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order No. 366/5NGE/2003 dated 24/7/2003, but such employees were not found entitled to the benefits claimed by applicant. Moreover, there is no pre-existing right which entitles applicant to approach this Tribunal by moving application under section 33C(2) of the Act. So, application being not maintainable is otherwise liable to be dismissed.” In para 19 of its order dated 01.10.2012, the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, dealt with the order dated 24.07.2003, in the following manner:- “19. Here it would be pertinent to mention that no law/bye- laws/notification or instructions were promulgated by State of Punjab requiring the employees including the applicant for performing duty for six days in a week. There is also nothing on record to suggest that employees of field staff are not entitled to the benefits of notification dated April 7, 1980 adopting five days a week by the State of Punjab for its employees. Moreover, the order passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order No. 366/5NGE/2003 dtaed 24/7/2003 cannot be said to has been passed in pursuance or compliance of the observations made in the judgement Ex.-A1 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court. This order cannot over-ride the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case Municipal Employee Union Registered Sirhind & others v/s State of Punjab (in Civil Appeal 8434/1997) decided on 15/03/2000 and by the Division Bench of our Hon’ble High Court passed in CWP No. 4004/2003 titled as Sham Lal & others v/s State of Punjab and others. …..” PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 256

437. Thus, it is clear that without even going through the contents of the order dated 24.07.2003, passed by the Chief Engineer, or realizing that there is no similarity in the service conditions of the employees of the Irrigation Department with that of the employees of Octroi Department, in whose case the judgment in Sirhind’s case (supra) was passed, the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, which are subject matter of these 7 writ petitions, have been allowed by the respective Tribunals.

438. The candid and un-rebutted stand of Irrigation Department is that the employees who have filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, are governed by different set of rules, which are separate for field staff and separate for office staff, their services are not inter-changeable, and there is no common seniority. Even there are certain standing orders, which are applicable for the employees posted for construction, maintenance and repairs etc. of Ranjit Sagar Dam and other irrigation projects in the State of Punjab, whereunder it is specifically provided about working hours, admissibility of holidays, grant of compensatory leaves in lieu of working on holidays or over-time etc. Thus, this Court finds that the component of discrimination is not available to the field staff employees of the Irrigation Department.

439. Other than this, in these 7 writ petitions, the employees / applicants / respondents herein, have primarily relied upon the notification dated 07.04.1980, whereby instead of two Saturdays in a month, it was decided by the State of Punjab that all the four Saturdays in a month would be treated as Holidays. The applicants/employees have also relied upon the orders passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court); PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 257 thereby disposing of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) and submitted that they are entitled for extra wages for their working on Saturdays. However, in the applications filed by the employees, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, there appears to be no details as to how they can equate their right with the employees who were parties in Sirhind’s case (supra).

440. The employees were also required to lead evidence to the effect that their services are inter-transferable, they have a common seniority list and are governed by one set of rules. Learned Tribunals have not gone into the said aspect and perhaps were convinced while drawing a presumption that the employees are eligible to extra wages for working on Saturdays, at par with the employees working in the Octroi department, whose rights were dealt with by the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). However, such a presumption is unsustainable because the party who alleges a particular fact is casted with a duty to prove the same by leading positive/affirmative evidence in that regard. In the absence of any such pleading or the evidence, any such claim or its entitlement, cannot be created first time by the Court in favour of the employees.

441. The observation made by this Court in para No. 154 above, concerning the clarification issued by the Punjab Government, as per which the field staff was not entitled to enjoy the benefit of holiday on Saturday, is also applicable to the facts of the present 7 writ petitions.

442. The argument of the employees claiming right of extra wages for working on Saturdays on the strength of the notification dated

07.04.1980 (supra), issued by the State of Punjab and the dictum of PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 258 Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), is not enough to derive any right, which may be called as pre-existing right, for starting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Rather, pleaded case of the Irrigation Department in these writ petitions is that there is neither any common seniority list nor the services are inter-transferable.

443. In view of above discussion, the orders passed by the respective Industrial Tribunals, which have been impugned in 07 writ petitions (mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 511 of Annexure ‘U’), are hereby set aside being not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 are hereby allowed, whereas writ petition mentioned at Sr. No. 511 of Annexure ‘U’, filed by the employees, stands dismissed. Resultantly, all the applications filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, DIRECTIONS AND FINAL OUTCOME OF THE WRIT PETITIONS

444. After examining all the 511 writ petitions, by carving out the categories and recording of the reasons therein, I do find that employees, who filed the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, have misplaced their claims and, thus, misguided themselves. In fact, most of the applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees do not contain the details of the service conditions and the rules by which such services are governed. Therefore, it appears that under misconception and without understanding the spirit of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra), the claim was placed before the respective Industrial Tribunals. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 259

445. A detailed study of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) reveals that it is in two parts. Hon’ble Apex Court firstly analysed the service conditions and the relevant rules of the office staff employees and the field staff employees of the Octroi Department and then reached to the conclusion that the entitlement of both the groups of employees is required to be placed at one level. Thus, a kind of declaration qua their status is given by Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgement. Thereupon, the employees of Octroi Department were relegated for availing their remedy i.e. to file application(s) before the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, to place their entitlement before it under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.

446. In maximum number of cases/categories the concerned Industrial Tribunals have erred in law by directly entertaining the applications moved by the employees under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, without there being any finding or declaration/order/decree/award holding the entitlement for monetary benefits for any valid reason, after examining the service conditions and the rules applicable to the service.

447. Even maximum number of employees have not referred the rules applicable to their Service and in what manner their right is made out, so as to raise the claim for recovery of money as arrears of extra wages/compensation by moving application(s) under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Broadly it appears that with the declaration of judgement in Sirhind’s case (supra), every employee in the State of Punjab, working in various departments, started assuming that they are required to perform PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 260 duty for 5 days in a week only. While assuming so, the conditions of service and the applicable rules have been completely missed out.

448. Stretching out further, the issue of entitlement of money, if any, exists in favour of any employee, this Court is of the view that such a valid claim in law, can be said as a right of an employee, accruing every month as a recurring cause of action, until the amount of wages, for which such employee is entitled under the rules, is paid to him/her. Therefore, this Court would like to leave all the claims open the employees firstly get the entitlement of extra wages/compensation for working Saturdays/holidays proved/declared through appropriate proceedings before the concerned Forum, and thereafter by calculating the amount in terms of money, the application may be filed again under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

449. In case such application(s), under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, is moved by the concerned employee or set of employees, with complete details in regard of conditions of service and the rules under which the service is governed, and also the details of the already existing right accruing in the shape of money or worth to be calculated in terms of money, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Central Bank of India Ltd. (supra), Ganesh Razak (supra), Kankuben (supra), and Bombay Chemical India Ltd. (supra), such application would be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year, as per law. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 261 It is clarified that in case, application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, does not contain specific pleadings with details regarding pre-existing right worth to be executed by effecting the recovery process under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, no such application would be entertained.

450. Concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal would also satisfy itself as to whether the entitlement/right of the employee qua the extra wages/compensation claimed, has already been declared by way of any Court order or an administrative order passed by the concerned authority. It will be obligatory upon such employee while filing the application to explain the conditions of service, rules applicable to his/her service and the basis over which the application is filed to recover extra wages/compensation in terms of money. These observations/directions are issued by this Court after going through the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra) and Sat Pal Puri’s case (supra). Final outcome of the writ petitions

451. While dealing with the writ petitions under various Blocks/categories, after making detailed discussion and observations, all the 511 writ petitions have been decided by this Court. However, for the facility of reference and convenience, their final outcome is summarized as under:- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 262 Category Final Outcome Sr. No. 1. Fire Brigade [127 cases (Sr. Nos. 1 to 127 of Annexure ‘B’)]

2. Octroi & Octroi + [3 Fire Brigade cases (Sr. Nos. 128 to 130 of Annexure ‘C’)] Writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 1 to 52 of Annexure ‘B’ are dismissed and Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 53 to 127 of Annexure ‘B’ are allowed. Resultantly, all applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees being worthless, stand dismissed. Writ Petition mentioned at Sr. No. 128 of Annexure ‘C’ stands dismissed. At followed the same Those employees/petitioners, who are working in the Fire Brigade, and have approached this Court, by filing CWP No. 14253 of 2002 and 17042 of 2002, respectively, have no case for seeking ‘extra wages’ in lieu of the duty performed on Saturdays/holidays. Accordingly, both the writ petitions qua the members of the Fire Brigade are hereby dismissed. time, the reasoning adopted by this Court in CWP No. 11624 of 2015 (Sr. No. 128 of Annexure ‘C’), would employees/petitioners, who were/are working in the Octroi Wing of the Municipalities, in the same terms as has already been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sirhind’s case (supra). Such employees/petitioners would be entitled to seek their remedy in view of Sirhind’s case (supra), by filing exhaustive applications under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, if so advised. However, said exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, and such claim would depend upon the law of limitation on the subject matter, if any operates. applied qua

3. Works Public Department (Buildings & Roads), Punjab [82 cases (Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure ‘D’)] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 131 to 212 of Annexure ‘D’ are allowed and applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 263

7. Public Works Department (Public Health), Punjab [12 cases (Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure ‘E’)] Punjab Roadways [95 cases (Sr. Nos. 225 to 319 of Annexure ‘F’)] Road Pepsu Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) [9 cases (Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure ‘G’)] Local Government, Punjab, Department of Self Government [89 cases (Sr. Nos. to 417 of 329 Annexures ‘H’ ‘N’)]

8. Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab [34 cases (Sr. Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure ‘O’)] Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board [28 cases (Sr. Nos. 452 to 479 of Annexure ‘P’)]

10. Health Department, Punjab [1 case (Sr. No. 480 Annexure ‘Q’)] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 213 to 224 of Annexure ‘E’ are allowed and applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 225 to 316 of Annexure ‘F’, are allowed, and applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees therein are deemed to be dismissed. Writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 317 to 319 of Annexure ‘F’, and applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are dismissed. Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 320 to 328 of Annexure ‘G’ are allowed and applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 329 to 382 and 384 to 417 of Annexures ‘H’ to ‘N’ are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. CWP No. 09719 of 2013 (mentioned at ‘J’) stands Sr. No. 383 of Annexure dismissed. Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 418 to 451 of Annexure ‘O’ are allowed and applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. 23 writ petitions, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 452 to 472, 478 & 479 of Annexure ‘P’, are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Remaining 5 writ petitions from Sr. Nos. 473 to 477 of Annexure ‘P’ are dismissed. Writ Petition mentioned at Sr. No. 480 of Annexure ‘Q’ stands allowed and the application, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees is deemed to be dismissed. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 264

11. Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab [2 cases (Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure ‘R’)]

12. Sainik Welfare, Punjab [1 case (Sr. 483 No. Annexure ‘S’)]

13. Punjab Mandi Board [21 cases (Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure ‘T’)]

14. Irrigation Department, Punjab [7 cases (Sr. No. 505 to 511 of Annexure ‘U’)] Writ Petitions from Sr. Nos. 481 & 482 of Annexure ‘R’ are allowed and applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Writ Petition mentioned at Sr. No. 483 of Annexure ‘S’ stands allowed and the application, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employee is deemed to be dismissed. Writ Petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 484 to 504 of Annexure ‘T’ are allowed and the applications, under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Writ petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 505 to 510 of Annexure ‘U’ are allowed, whereas writ petition mentioned at Sr. No. 511 of Annexure ‘U’, filed by the employees, stands dismissed. applications filed by the employees are deemed to be dismissed. Resultantly, all

452. Before parting with the judgment, this Court is grateful to Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate – Amicus Curiae, for sparing his invaluable time to assist this Court in these writ petitions. He devoted time and energy willingly and worked smilingly (and that too gratis). His efforts and contribution are worthy of great commendation.

453. Even there was a lot of input of physical and mental exercise, while dealing with huge bunch matter of 511 cases, as Letters Patent Bench, vide judgement dated 06.12.2018, passed in Gurmeet Singh’s case (supra), expressed its expectation to deal with every petition separately. To meet out the said purpose, all required assistance has been provided by my Court staff, such as Special Secretary, Private Secretary, Reader and Restorers etc., especially in the absence of the material PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-06535-2017 & 510 connected petitions 265 assistance of the counsel, who did not appear at the time of hearing of petitions. Even the Law Researchers, namely, Mr. Akinchan Aggarwal and Ms. Ipshita Arora, who are/were attached to this Court, also provided their worthy assistance. The job of categorisation of the writ petitions into different blocks, and compilation of particulars of the employees, writ petition- wise, as depicted in Annexures ‘A’ to ‘U’, which was a tidy job, has been accomplished by Mr. Prashant Kapoor, Special Secretary, who made himself available dedicatedly even on holidays, thereby making my exercise comfortable. I would be failing in my pious duty if the work done by my complete Court staff is not appreciated. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 6, 2024 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned? ✓ Yes / No ✓ Yes / No Whether reportable? PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 266 ANNEXURE: ‘A’ WRIT PETITION NOS. & PARTIES NAME OF 511 CASES DECIDED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED AUGUST 6, 2024 passed in the case of KASTURI LAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AMRITSAR & OTHERS (CWP NO. 06535 OF 2017) 06535 of 2017 06536 of 2017 06537 of 2017 06538 of 2017 06539 of 2017 06540 of 2017 06541 of 2017 06542 of 2017 06543 of 2017 06544 of 2017 Kasturi Lal s/o Kundan Lal Municipal Corporation, Baldev Singh s/o Gurnam Singh Ajit Singh s/o Piara Lal Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Madan Lal s/o Neeru Ram Municipal Corporation, Lovepreet Singh s/o Satburg Singh Paramjit Singh s/o Ram Aasray Dilbagh Singh s/o Pargat Singh Krishan Kumar s/o Riar Singh Sadiq Masih s/o Mohinder Masih Janak Raj s/o Madan Lal Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Pawan Kumar s/o Chanan Lal Harjinder Singh s/o Pritam Singh Krishan Kumar s/o Raj Mal Municipal Corporation, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Jagtar Singh s/o Tehal Singh Raj Anthony s/o Nathanial Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others 06545 of 2017 06546 of 2017 06547 of 2017 06548 of 2017 06549 of 2017 06550 of 2017 06551 of 2017 Gurdeep Singh s/o Hazara Rajinder Kumar s/o Gandhi Ram Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others 06552 of 2017 06553 of 2017 06554 of 2017 Singh Jit Singh s/o Karam Singh Municipal Corporation, Ajaib Singh s/o Chanan Singh Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Deepak Sharma s/o Roop Lal Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 267 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 06555 of 2017 06556 of 2017 06557 of 2017 06558 of 2017 06559 of 2017 Jagmohan Singh s/o Sanglu Ram Nishan Singh s/o Dalip Singh Shamaun Gill s/o Guranditta Mal Joginder Singh s/o Khazan Singh Charanjit Singh s/o Ajaib Singh Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Anil Luthra s/o Dharam Pal Municipal Corporation, 06560 of 2017 06561 of 2017 Raman Kumar s/o Surinder 06562 of 2017 06563 of 2017 06564 of 2017 Kumar Paramjit Singh s/o Dewan Chand Parshotam Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh Ravinder Kumar s/o Mati Ram Rajinder Kumar s/o Gobind Ram Anoop Singh s/o Chanan Singh Madan Lal s/o Ajit Raj 06565 of 2017 06566 of 2017 06567 of 2017 06568 of 2017 06569 of 2017 Jaspal Singh s/o Santokh 06570 of 2017 Singh 06571 of 2017 Shehbaz Singh s/o Sat Pal Sharma s/o Babu Ram Mukesh Lal s/o Ram Lal 06572 of 2017 06573 of 2017 Mohinder Singh Hazura Singh s/o Amrik Singh Ranbir Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh 07356 of 2017 07359 of 2017 07361 of 2017 Sukhdev Singh s/o Sucha Singh s/o Jaswant Singh Harbhajan Singh s/o Joginder Singh Gurbachan Singh Varinder Kumar s/o Tilak Raj Tilak Raj Maini s/o Madan Lal Yash Pal s/o Gian Chand 07363 of 2017 07364 of 2017 07366 of 2017 07368 of 2017 Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Ravinder Kumar V/S Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Raj Kumar s/o Jaila Singh Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 268 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 07370 of 2017 07372 of 2017 07373 of 2017 07374 of 2017 07375 of 2017 Raj Davinder s/o Gurdev Singh Varinderjit Singh s/o Lakhmir Singh Shamsher Masih s/o Munshi Masih Dilbagh Singh s/o Sawarn Singh Surinder Singh s/o Joginder Singh 07376 of Vinod Kumar s/o Om 2017 Parkash 15950 of Municipal Corporation, Patiala 2016 16286 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16287 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16463 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16467 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16517 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, S.A.S. Nagar 16518 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16519 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16520 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16521 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16522 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16609 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16610 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16611 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, S.A.S. Nagar 16612 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16613 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16614 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16692 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16693 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16694 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & others Arvinder Singh & others Rajinder Singh & others Manoj Kumar & others Lovkush & others Rajesh Kumar & others Sukhwinder Singh & others Arun Kumar & others Rakesh Thapar & others Sham Sunder & others Ashok Kumar & others Surinder Kumar & others Raman Kumar & others Jagar Singh & others Faqir Chand Sharma & others Balvir Singh & others Amarjit Singh & others Mukesh Kumar & others Karam Singh & others Hukam Chand & others Swarn Chand & others PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 16695 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16696 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16697 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16698 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16699 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16700 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16701 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16702 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16703 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16704 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16705 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16706 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16707 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16708 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16709 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 269 Vijay Kumar & others Sunil Kumar & others Lachhman Dass Sharma & others Vijay Kumar & others Gurdev Singh & others Dewan Chand & others Hari Kishan & others Nachhatar Singh & others Jaswant Singh & others Mangal Mal & others Des Raj & others Om Parkash & others Kuldeep Singh & others Ram Kumar Sharma & others Madan Gopal & others Karam Singh & others Gurcharan Singh Sidhu & others Harpreet Kaur & others 16710 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16711 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16712 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16713 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16714 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16715 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16716 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 16717 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Council, Sangrur Karam Singh & others Jagmohan Lal & others Gurdial Singh & others Vishal Kumar & others Bua Ditta & others Jatinder Pal Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Arun Kumar & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Amar Nath & others 25726 of 2016 25728 of 2016 25729 of 2016 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 270 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Municipal Council, Sangrur Raj Kumar & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Harkirat Singh & others 25730 of 2016 25731 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Sudarshan Jain & others 25732 of 2016 25734 of 2016 25735 of 2016 Municipal Council, Sangrur Mohinder Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Labh Singh & others 16319 of 2018 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana 17179 of 2018 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana 17965 of 2018 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Municipal Corporation, Moga 18743 of 2023 02603 of 2023 02627 of 2023 02636 of 2023 02645 of 2023 05376 of 2023 01530 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Moga Municipal Corporation, Moga Municipal Corporation, Moga Municipal Corporation, Moga Municipal Council, Rajpura Jit Singh & others Surinder Pal s/o Mehar Chand & others Harish Chander Singh & others Dinesh Kumar s/o Shiv Kumar & others Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Pawan Kumar s/o Ram Chand & others 114 01723 of 2015 Municipal Council, Rajpura Gokul Chand s/o Prem 115 116 07633 of 2018 28835 of 2017 Municipal Council, Fatehgarh Sahib Municipal Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib 117 16743 of 2017 Municipal Council, Kotkapura 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 20708 of 2014 20709 of 2014 04600 of 2015 23551 of 2014 23935 of 2014 08470 of 2015 08475 of 2015 Municipal Council, Kotkapura Municipal Council, Kotkapura Nagar Council, Kotkapura Municipal Corporation, SAS Nagar Municipal Corporation, SAS Nagar Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Chand & another Dalwinder Singh & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Manjit Kaur wd/o Amarjit Singh & others Isher Singh s/o Hazara Singh & others 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 09456 of 2015 09458 of 2015 03072 of 2015 11624 of 2015 Municipal Council, Dera Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Municipal Council, Malerkotla 14253 of 2002 Bassi Kulwinder Singh s/o Kartar Singh & others 17042 of 2002 13715 of 2017 Executive Engineer, Jaswinder Singh s/o Roop Singh & others 06410 of 2015 Provincial Division No.1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 06411 of 2015 Executive Engineer, 06412 of 2015 06413 of 2015 06414 of 2015 06415 of 2015 06416 of 2015 06425 of 2015 Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others State of Punjab & others 140 23543 of 2016 141 24393 of 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 271 Shiv Kumar s/o Naresh Kumar & others Kulwinder Kaur wd/o Jaswant Singh & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Patiala & others Mangat Ram s/o Nand Lal & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others Joginder Singh s/o Jagat Singh & others Lachhman Dass s/o Nand Lal & another Deepak Batra s/o Sham Lal & another Lakha Singh s/o Tehal Singh & another Sukhdev Singh s/o Bhag Singh & another Madan Gopal s/o Sant Lal & another Ram Ujagar s/o Jageshmer Parsad & another Mewa Singh s/o Bant Singh & another Moti Lal s/o Ganga Din & another Amarjeet Kaur wd/o Gurdial Singh & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & others CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 142 14973 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 143 14983 of 2015 144 14984 of 2015 145 14985 of 2015 146 147 14986 of 2015 14987 of 2015 148 14988 of 2015 14989 of 2015 149 150 151 152 153 14990 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 14991 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 14992 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 14993 of 2015 154 14994 of 2015 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 272 Hira Lal s/o Moti Lal & another Ravi Hussain s/o Hamid Hussain & another Sukhdev Singh s/o Paiara Singh & another Madan Lal s/o Kanshi Ram & another Gurcharan Singh s/o Ajmer Singh & another Hukam Chand s/o Mohan Lal & another Mohan Lal s/o Puran Masi & another Gurmeet Singh s/o Nand Lal & another Jang Singh s/o Harnek Singh & another Ajmer Singh s/o Narata Singh & another Om Parkash s/o Nand Lal & another Neel Money s/o Maya & another Raghubir Chand s/o Paltoo Ram & another CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 155 156 157 14995 of 2015 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 14996 of 2015 Executive Engineer, 15720 of 2015 Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 158 03011 of 2016 State of Punjab & others 25140 of 2016 23800 of 2014 08994 of 2015 09000 of 2015 Chief Engineer, Punjab, PWD (B&R) Branch, Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R), Patiala & others 13281 of 2015 Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others 13291 of 2015 Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others 01832 of 2015 13299 of 2015 Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others 02234 of 2015 273 Santokh Singh s/o Bishan Singh & another Dudh Nath s/o Nand Lal & another Parveen Kumar s/o Narata Ram & another Ram Saran s/o Ram Kartar & another Sant Ram s/o Zandu Ram & others Bhupinder Singh s/o Bant Singh & others Puran Singh s/o Narata Singh & another Banso Devi wd/o Jeet Singh & another Bharpur Singh s/o Mangal Singh & another Ishar Singh through LR Gurmail Kaur & another Narang Singh s/o Arjan Singh & another Rajinder Singh s/o Dyal Singh & another Piara Singh s/o Puran Singh & another 02271 of 2015 Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others 02272 of 2015 Manjit Singh s/o Arur Singh & another Dev Raj s/o Bhag & another 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 02277 of 2015 16020 of 2013 05640 of 2017 05654 of 2017 23048 of 2014 23053 of 2014 23085 of 2014 23087 of 2014 05630 of 2017 05635 of 2017 05636 of 2017 05637 of 2017 05638 of 2017 05639 of 2017 Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 05656 of 2017 05921 of 2017 State of Punjab & others 05922 of 2017 06226 of 2017 19284 of 2014 19285 of 2014 19287 of 2014 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others Executive Engineer, Construction Division No. 3, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others Executive Engineer, Construction Division No. 3, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others Executive Engineer, Construction Division No. 3, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others 274 Hansa Singh s/o Charan Singh & another Tikka Ram s/o Sunder Singh & others Jaspal Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh & another Darshan Singh s/o Bhag Singh & another Darshan Singh s/o Dilawar & another Mehar Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh & another Raj Kumar Batra s/o Ram Chand & another Ashok Kumar s/o Daulat Ram & another Mangal Singh s/o Tirlok Singh & another Ranbir Singh s/o Hoshiar Singh & another Sat Pal s/o Paras Ram & another Mohinder Singh s/o Gurdit Singh & another Balbir Singh s/o Tara Singh & another Mohinder Singh s/o Kartar Singh & another Mohinder Singh s/o Khusia Singh & another Balkar Singh s/o Atma Singh & another Jit Singh s/o Natha Singh & another Rajesh Kumar s/o Ramesh Chander & another Amarjit Sharma s/o Lakh Ran & another Rattan Paul Sharma s/o Lal Chand & another Vijay Pal s/o Chhaju Ram & another CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 191 10747 of 2016 State of Punjab & others 07382 of 2017 07387 of 2017 07457 of 2017 07548 of 2017 07554 of 2017 23252 of 2014 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others Executive Engineer, Road & Bridges Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur & others State of Punjab & others 07555 of 2017 17714 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 200 17715 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 201 202 203 State of Punjab & others 04697 of 2014 04960 of 2014 17718 of 2013 State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & others 204 17730 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 205 17735 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 206 17751 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 207 17816 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 208 24167 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 209 24168 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 210 24176 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 211 212 213 214 215 216 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement State of Punjab & others 05907 of 2015 25193 of 2013 State of Punjab & others 14656 of 2014 14657 of 2014 14658 of 2014 14672 of 2014 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 275 Ajit Singh s/o Maha Singh & another Joginder Singh s/o Ujjaggar Singh & another Bishna Ram s/o Pema Ram @ Panna Ram & another Shingara Singh s/o Sewa Singh & another Sultan Masih s/o Fazil Masih & another Lamber s/o Bag Singh & another Anand Kumar Aggarwal s/o Ram Kumar Aggarwal & another Tarsem Lal s/o Mulkh Raj & another Gurbachan Lal s/o Chandu Lal & others Veer Singh s/o Sadhu Singh & others Roop Singh s/o Dyal Singh & another Gura Singh s/o Channan Singh & another Prabh Dayal s/o Dina Ram & others Harpal Singh s/o Gokha Singh & others Baldev Singh s/o Inder Singh & others Dalip Singh s/o Kheta Singh & others Sadhu Singh s/o Veer Singh & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana & others Billu Ram s/o Shanker Ram & others Shambu Ram s/o Khillu Ram & others Rajinder Parsad s/o Jagab Nath & another Ram Lalit s/o Bhago & others CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 14673 of 2014 14674 of 2014 14685 of 2014 14696 of 2014 24769 of 2014 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 24782 of 2014 03231 of 2015 26658 of 2014 16015 of 2013 State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & others 05581 of 2013 05659 of 2013 The Director, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh & another The Director, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh & another 11418 of 2013 The Director, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh & another 11428 of 2013 The Director, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh & another 11460 of 2013 The Director, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh & another 13170 of 2013 The Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh & another 13171 of 2013 The Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh & another 13172 of 2013 The Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh & another 13173 of 2013 The Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh & another 13174 of 2013 The Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh & another 236 16016 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 237 16017 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 238 16019 of 2013 State of Punjab & another PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 276 Chand Singh s/o Bhalu Ram & another Gurunaib Singh s/o Pritam Singh & another Gyan Singh s/o Sadhu Singh & others Dwarka Dass s/o Bhawani Ram & others Baljit Singh s/o Ajaib Singh & others Ashok Kumar s/o Hari Ram & others Amar Singh s/o Hardial Singh & others Sohan Lal s/o Gurdas Chand & others Rajinder Kumar s/o Bant Ram & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Gurdev Singh s/o Harnam Singh & others Sadhu Singh s/o Baghera Singh & others Mohinder Singh s/o Anokh Singh & others Balbir Singh s/o Darshan Singh & others Joginder Singh s/o Saudagar Singh & others Balwant Singh s/o Dalip Singh & another Roop Lal s/o Daulat Ram & others Manjit Singh s/o Gurdas Singh & others Basant Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh & others Mehar Singh s/o Maghar Singh & others Mohan Singh s/o Labh Singh & others CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 239 16031 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 240 16033 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 241 242 243 16034 of 2013 16944 of 2013 16945 of 2013 State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & others 244 16946 of 2013 State of Punjab & another 245 246 247 State of Punjab & another 12302 of 2014 02883 of 2014 22328 of 2011 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & another 248 21839 of 2013 State of Punjab & others 249 250 251 252 253 State of Punjab & others 22208 of 2013 25129 of 2013 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 25134 of 2013 25135 of 2013 25136 of 2013 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 254 25137 of 2013 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 25138 of 2013 25548 of 2013 26968 of 2013 26978 of 2013 26987 of 2013 26993 of 2013 26995 of 2013 01941 of 2014 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 01955 of 2014 01962 of 2014 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 277 Balwinder Singh s/o Mohan Singh & others Darshan Singh s/o Arjan Singh & others Swaran Singh s/o Kundan Singh & others Harchet Singh s/o Kartar Singh & others Nirbhai Singh s/o Harpal Singh & others Harbans Singh s/o Ajit Singh & others Vijay Kumar s/o Surjan Dass & another Harbhajan Singh s/o Dial Singh & another Pritam Bhagat s/o Karam Chand & others Ram Darshan s/o Banwari Lal & another Jaspal Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh & another Hardev Singh s/o Sunder Singh & another Parminder Singh s/o Gurdayal Singh & another Uttam Singh s/o Mohar Singh & another Prem Sager s/o Sant Ram & another Nempal Singh s/o Kirpal Singh & another Balvir Singh s/o Tarlok Singh& another Harpreet Singh s/o Harnek Singh & another Harbans Lal s/o Ram Chand & another Gursewak Singh s/o Makhan Singh & another Chiman Lal s/o Hans Raj & another Balvir Singh s/o Gopal Singh & another Harjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh & another Mukand Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh & another Ravinder Singh s/o Baldev Singh & another Malkiat Singh s/o Banta Singh & another CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 265 01971 of 2014 State of Punjab & others 266 01976 of 2014 State of Punjab & others 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 08041 of 2014 08043 of 2014 08044 of 2014 08045 of 2014 08046 of 2014 08047 of 2014 08048 of 2014 08053 of 2014 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 09218 of 2015 09219 of 2015 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 09220 of 2015 09221 of 2015 State of Punjab & others 09222 of 2015 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 09223 of 2015 09224 of 2015 11389 of 2013 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 283 11603 of 2013 State of Punjab & others 284 285 286 287 288 289 07939 of 2014 07946 of 2014 05640 of 2016 07639 of 2016 07640 of 2016 07642 of 2016 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 278 Malkiat Singh s/o Wariam Singh & another Jagtar Singh s/o Gurdev Singh & another Gurwinderjit Singh s/o Bakshish Singh & another Bakhtawar Singh s/o Chet Singh & another Sukhdev Singh s/o Tara Singh & another Kuldeep Singh s/o Kartar Singh & another Sukhmander Singh s/o Guranditt Singh & another Narinder Singh s/o Amrik Singh & another Sukhwinder Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh & another Jaswinder Singh s/o Hardev Singh & another Gurshinderpal Singh s/o Karnail Singh & another Puran Singh s/o Dara Singh & another Puran Singh s/o Bara Singh & another Sukhdev Singh s/o Dharm Singh & another Tarlochan Singh s/o Anant Singh & another Surinder Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh & another Jagtar Singh s/o Chand Singh & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Gian Chand s/o Mangal Ram & others Harchand Singh s/o Joginder Singh & others Jit Kaur wd/o Shinderpal Singh & others Harpal Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh & another Bikkar Singh s/o Chand Singh & another Gursewak Singh s/o Bhag Singh & another CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 07643 of 2016 07644 of 2016 05641 of 2016 05642 of 2016 05647 of 2016 State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another 05648 of 2016 05650 of 2016 05651 of 2016 05652 of 2016 08112 of 2016 State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & others 10490 of 2018 17819 of 2010 State of Punjab & others 302 21702 of 2012 State of Punjab & others 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 04062 of 2013 04069 of 2013 04075 of 2013 04076 of 2013 04086 of 2013 04087 of 2013 13204 of 2014 State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & another 310 13215 of 2014 State of Punjab & another 311 13222 of 2014 State of Punjab & another PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 279 Paramjeet Singh s/o Chanan Singh & another Geja Singh s/o Hardev Singh & another Kanwaljit Singh s/o Gurdip Singh & another Jasbir Kaur wd/o Mehar Singh & others Surjit Mahinder Singh s/o Guriqbal Singh & another Gurbachan Singh s/o Karam Singh & another Baltej Singh s/o Nachhattar Singh & another Gurmeet Singh s/o Mal Singh & another Salwant Singh s/o Puran Singh & another Sajjan Singh s/o Gehana Singh & another Shakti Parshad s/o Charanjit Lal & another Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 312 11804 of 2015 State of Punjab & another 313 11986 of 2015 State of Punjab & another 314 14031 of 2015 State of Punjab & another 315 13210 of 2014 State of Punjab & another 316 21510 of 2013 State of Punjab & others 317 12561 of 2013 Gurpal Singh & others 318 12605 of 2013 Sukhdev Singh s/o Shangara Singh & others 319 17221 of 2013 Jaswinder Singh s/o Rattan Chand 10614 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport 320 Corporation, Patiala 321 10617 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala 322 10672 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 16114 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & another 16116 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & another 16117 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & another 16123 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & another 16273 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & another 16274 of 2013 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & another Municipal Corporation, Amritsar 04598 of 2015 24422 of 2017 03920 of 2015 04088 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & another Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala 280 Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar & others State of Punjab & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Satwinder Singh s/o Gurbax Singh & others Sukhwinder Singh & others Baldev Singh s/o Chattar Singh & others Satpal Singh s/o Assa Singh & others Mithu Singh & others Mohinder Singh s/o Sohan Singh & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 281 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 18117 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 04111 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala 04120 of 2015 04122 of 2015 04126 of 2015 04127 of 2015 04139 of 2015 04268 of 2015 04278 of 2015 04279 of 2015 04280 of 2015 04281 of 2015 04282 of 2015 04283 of 2015 04284 of 2015 04285 of 2015 04286 of 2015 04287 of 2015 04288 of 2015 04378 of 2015 04385 of 2015 04386 of 2015 04389 of 2015 04390 of 2015 04409 of 2015 04430 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Gurmail Singh s/o Jangir Singh & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 282 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 04431 of 2015 04523 of 2015 04524 of 2015 04525 of 2015 04526 of 2015 04527 of 2015 04543 of 2015 04544 of 2015 04545 of 2015 04559 of 2015 04560 of 2015 04561 of 2015 04581 of 2015 04937 of 2015 04976 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, 04982 of Patiala 2015 Municipal Corporation, 05008 of Patiala 2015 Municipal Corporation, 06187 of 2015 Patiala 06211 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 06788 of Municipal Corporation, 2015 Patiala 18298 of Municipal Corporation, Patiala 2016 19267 of 2016 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 04121 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, Patiala 09011 of 2013 Municipal Committee, Jalalabad 383 09719 of 2013 Sukhdev Raj s/o Hans Raj & 384 08414 of 2014 others Municipal Council, Jalalabad PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Hardeep Singh s/o Joginder Singh & others Puran Chand s/o Changa Ram & another Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Vijay Kumar s/o Parbhan Ram & another CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 08417 of 2014 08419 of 2014 08420 of 2014 08423 of 2014 08424 of 2014 08478 of 2014 08882 of 2014 09973 of 2015 09893 of 2015 09904 of 2015 Municipal Council, Jalalabad Municipal Council, Jalalabad Municipal Council, Jalalabad Municipal Council, Jalalabad Municipal Council, Jalalabad Municipal Council, Jalalabad Municipal Council, Jalalabad Nagar Council, Abohar Nagar Council, Abohar Nagar Council, Abohar 283 Chaman Lal @ Chamal Lal s/o Khraiti Lal & another Ram Kishan s/o Dharam Chand & another Maya Devi w/o Banarsi Dass & another Pappu Ram s/o Chander Lal & another Om Parkash s/o Jawali Ram & another Gurbax Lal s/o Chander Lal & another Ram Avtar s/o Tara Chand & another Bag Singh s/o Shankar Singh & others Pritam Singh s/o Kartar Singh & others Dharam Pal s/o Sampat Ram & others Rani wd/o Roshan Lal Nagar Council, Abohar Nagar Council, Abohar 09905 of 2015 09955 of 2015 04623 of 2017 04624 of 2017 05619 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Mohinder Singh s/o Municipal Council, Sangrur Nahar Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Harbhajan Singh & others Hira Lal s/o Sumer Singh & others Gurbachan Singh Jit Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur 05620 of 2017 05621 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Madan Dass & others Jagan Nath & others 05622 of 2017 05623 of 2017 05624 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Surjit Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Daljit Kumar & others 05625 of 2017 05626 of 2017 05627 of 2017 05628 of 2017 05629 of 2017 05666 of 2017 Municipal Council, Sangrur Ramesh Kumar & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Jarnail Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Parab Dayal & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Baldev Krishan & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Sukhwinder Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Joti Ram & others 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 284 Municipal Council, Sangrur Harbans Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Karnail Singh & others Municipal Council, Sangrur Ballu Singh & others 411 412 413 414 415 05748 of 2017 05768 of 2017 05775 of 2017 21211 of 2015 Municipal Corporation, 26154 of 2015 Ludhiana Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana 416 01727 of 2015 Municipal Council, Rajpura Ram Bhajan s/o Bahadur Municipal Council, Rajpura Dharam Singh s/o Puran Singh & others Paramjit Singh s/o Dalip Singh & others Bhagirath s/o Bhima Ram & others Singh & others Davinder Singh s/o Mohinder Singh & another Bahadur Singh s/o Kartar Singh & another Jeet Lal s/o Hari Ram & another Kasturi Lal s/o Pala Ram & another Shangar Singh s/o Fateh Singh & another Tarlok Chand Gupta s/o Bishan Dass & another Inder Singh s/o Bakhtabar Singh & another Bihari Lal s/o Algu Ram & another Inderjit Singh s/o Mehtab Singh & another Rajinder Pal Modgil s/o Kulwant Rai & another 01747 of 2015 08696 of 2019 08699 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others 08703 of 2019 08705 of 2019 08700 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others 08711 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water 08708 of 2019 08709 of 2019 08707 of 2019 Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others 08712 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 428 429 430 08714 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others 08716 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water 08715 of 2019 431 08718 of 2019 Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others 432 08719 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others 08721 of 2019 Executive Engineer, Water 433 434 08722 of 2019 435 436 08723 of 2019 08725 of 2019 437 08726 of 2019 Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division, GW (now Division No.-3), Ludhiana & others State of Punjab & others 438 439 440 08332 of 2015 07624 of 2015 11163 of 2015 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 441 11377 of 2015 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 16284 of 2015 16850 of 2015 18156 of 2015 State of Punjab & another State of Punjab & others 442 443 444 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 285 Tarlochan Singh s/o Kundan Singh & another Jeet Ram s/o Bhagat Ram & another Satinder Kumar s/o Dwarka Dass & another Baljinder Singh s/o Wattan Singh & another Gurwinder Singh Bajwa s/o Kirpal Singh & another Pal Singh s/o Chint Singh & another Nachhatar Singh s/o Nath Singh & another Kewal Krishan Sehgal s/o Khairati Lal & another Shiv Kumar s/o Surja Ram & another Tilak Raj Dogra s/o Guran Datta & another Hurshi Kesh s/o Gashinder & others Ram Bahadur s/o Chhote Lal & others Harjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh& others Abhay Raj s/o Jageshwar Yadav & another France Masih s/o Samuel Masih & others Sohan Lal s/o Nathu Ram & others Shiv Dayal s/o Ram Lal & another. CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 07604 of 2015 07609 of 2015 07636 of 2015 07740 of 2015 08063 of 2015 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 08331 of 2015 16171 of 2015 State of Punjab & others 452 19411 of 2014 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 453 19412 of 2014 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 454 19413 of 2014 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 455 19414 of 2014 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 456 19415 of 2014 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 457 19417 of 2014 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 458 19418 of 2014 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 459 19419 of 2014 Municipal Council, 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 Ferozepur 19420 of 2014 19421 of 2014 Municipal Council, Municipal Council, Ferozepur 19422 of 2014 19423 of 2014 19424 of 2014 19425 of 2014 19426 of 2014 19427 of 2014 19428 of 2014 19429 of 2014 19430 of 2014 Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur 286 Balbir Singh s/o Dalip Singh & others Tarsem Lal s/o Babu Ram & others Jugraj Singh s/o Amar Singh & others Mansukh Singh s/o Inder Singh & others Ram Sunder s/o Suraj Din & another Surjit Singh s/o Faquir Chand & another Gurdeep Singh s/o Nachhattar Singh & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 471 25325 of 2016 Municipal Council, Ferozepur 472 19416 of 2014 Municipal Council, 473 474 475 476 477 478 06235 of 2015 06204 of 2015 06245 of 2015 Ferozepur Nishan Singh s/o Darshan Singh Darshan Singh s/o Mohan Singh Dinesh Kumar s/o Krishan Kumar 06255 of 2015 06725 of 2015 19410 of 2014 Municipal Council, Gurmit Singh s/o Piara Singh Anokha Singh s/o Santa Singh Ferozepur 479 16982 of 2016 Municipal Council, 480 481 482 27408 of 2016 Ferozepur Chief Medical Officer, Amritsar & others State of Punjab & others 09306 of 2014 22791 of 2016 Director, Animal Husbandry Punjab & others 483 15817 of 2016 The District Sainik Welfare 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 18083 of 2013 07209 of 2015 20564 of 2016 08315 of 2014 08316 of 2014 10464 of 2014 10472 of 2014 10720 of 2014 10998 of 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Officer, Jalandhar & another Punjab Mandi Board & others Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Bathinda Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Bathinda Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur & another Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur 287 Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & another Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & others Gopal Singh Hans s/o Jarnail Singh & others Jagsir Singh s/o Rattan Singh & others Ramjeet s/o Bal Karan & others Tarsem Lal s/o Jai Ram & another Prem Singh s/o Achhar Singh & others Nirbhai Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh & others Nachhatter Singh s/o Ajmer Singh & others Sarbat Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh & others Narinder Pal Singh s/o Avtar Singh & others Nachattar Singh s/o Ajmer Singh & others Harminder Singh s/o Atma Singh & others Rakesh Kumar s/o Roop Lal & others Ladhu Ram s/o Net Ram & others CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 288 Veer Singh s/o Balwant Singh & others Malkit Singh s/o Jagdev Singh & others Major Singh s/o Pritam Singh & others Varinderjeet Puri s/o Des Raj & others Gurnam Singh s/o Surjeet Singh & others Bharpur Singh s/o Jarnail Singh & others Jasmel Singh s/o Chand Singh & others Balbir Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh & others Jaswinder Singh s/o Arjun Singh & others Baldev Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh & others Gurshwinder Singh s/o Bhola Singh & others Labh Singh s/o Gurdit Singh & others Muna Ram s/o Garib & another Sadhu Singh s/o Palla Singh & another Panu Ram s/o Jondha Ram & another Diwan Chand s/o Mamu Ram & another Kartar Singh s/o Surain Singh & another Gurnam Singh s/o Kaka Singh & another State of Punjab & others 493 494 495 02260 of 2015 02231 of 2015 Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Ferozepur 07207 of 2015 496 11889 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Sub 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 20565 of 2016 20566 of 2016 20567 of 2016 20568 of 2016 Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Jaitu, District Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot 20569 of 2016 20570 of 2016 20571 of 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, 10478 of 2014 Faridkot Punjab Mandi Board through its Executive Engineer (Civil), Faridkot State of Punjab & others 25518 of 2012 26183 of 2012 State of Punjab & others State of Punjab & others 00422 of 2013 15872 of 2012 State of Punjab & others 00428 of 2013 12985 of 2015 State of Punjab & others Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lehal Division, Bara Khua, Patiala & others Pawan Kumar s/o Inderjit Prashar & others 511 20647 of 2015 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 289 ANNEXURE: ‘B’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF FIRE BRIGADE [Total 127 cases, Sr. Nos. 1 to 127] [Cases of Municipal Corporation(s)/Council(s) – Amritsar; Patiala; Sangrur; Ludhiana; Moga; Rajpura; Fatehgarh Sahib; Sri Muktsar Sahib; Kotkapura; SAS Nagar; Dera Bassi; and Malerkotla] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 06535 2017 06536 2017 06537 2017 06538 2017 06539 2017 06540 2017 06541 2017 06542 2017 06543 2017 06544 2017 06545 2017 06546 2017 06547 2017 06548 2017 06549 2017 06550 2017 06551 2017 06552 2017 06553 2017 73 of 2014 19 of 2014 17 of 2014 32 of 2014 30 of 2014 59 of 2014 20 of 2014 28 of 2014 46 of 2014 26 of 2014 37 of 2014 71 of 2014 29 of 2014 64 of 2014 40 of 2014 45 of 2014 69 of 2014 27 of 2014 77 of 2014

06.09.16 Amritsar

06.09.16 Amritsar Kasturi Lal Baldev Singh

06.09.16 Amritsar Ajit Singh

06.09.16 Amritsar

06.09.16 Amritsar Madan Lal Lovepreet Singh Paramjit Singh Dilbagh Singh Krishan Kumar Sadiq Masih

06.09.16 Amritsar Janak Raj

06.09.16 Amritsar

06.09.16 Amritsar Pawan Kumar Harjinder Singh Krishan Kumar Jagtar Singh Raj Anthony Rajinder Kumar Gurdeep Singh

06.09.16 Amritsar Jit Singh Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Driver Operator Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Amritsar Officer Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Officer Amritsar Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Officer Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Driver Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Amritsar Officer Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Amritsar Officer Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Officer Amritsar Fireman Municipal

06.09.16 Amritsar Ajaib Singh Driver Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Service Parti- culars, if 03.04.80 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.)

1.1.08 to 31.3.08 Not available

01.12.97

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

05.11.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

12.01.84

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

14.12.95

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

05.11.96

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

28.02.91

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

06.12.84

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

02.04.80

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

28.01.87

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

12.03.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

23.10.87

1.1.08 to 31.12.12 Not available

01.06.82

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

27.08.87

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

05.04.83

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

27.01.87

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

02.04.80

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

05.11.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

08.04.80

1.1.08 to 31.10.07 Not available PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 06554 2017 06555 2017 06556 2017 06557 2017 06558 2017 06559 2017 06560 2017 06561 2017 06562 2017 06563 2017 06564 2017 06565 2017 06566 2017 06567 2017 06568 2017 06569 2017 06570 2017 06571 2017 06572 2017 06573 2017 07356 2017 07359 2017 07361 2017 07363 2017 07364 2017 21 of 2014 63 of 2014 35 of 2014 51 of 2014 72 of 2014 60 of 2014 15 of 2014 44 of 2014 36 of 2014 38 of 2014 41 of 2014 42 of 2014 16 of 2014 31 of 2014 76 of 2014 33 of 2014 25 of 2014 49 of 2014 58 of 2014 65 of 2014 75 of 2014 68 of 2014 50 of 2014 55 of 2014 53 of 2014

06.09.16 Amritsar

06.09.16 Amritsar Deepak Sharma Jagmoha n Singh Nishan Singh Shamaun Gill Joginder Singh Charanjit Singh Anil Luthra Raman Kumar Paramjit Singh Parshota m Singh Ravinder Kumar Rajinder Kumar Anoop Singh Madan Lal Sat Pal Sharma Mukesh Lal Jaspal Singh Shehbaz Singh Hazura Singh Ranbir Singh Sucha Singh Harbhajan Singh Sukhdev Singh Varinder Kumar Tilak Raj Maini PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Driver Operator Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Station Fire Officer Leading Fireman Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Officer Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Station Fire Officer Station Fire Officer Leading Fireman Corporation, Amritsar Station Municipal Fire Corporation, Amritsar Officer Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Driver Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Driver Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Station Fire Officer 290 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) Period of Claim

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available Service Parti- culars, if 17.12.82

05.11.96

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

19.02.87

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

29.06.83

02.04.80

1.1.05 to April, 2014) 1.1.08 to 31.10.11 Not available Not available

05.11.96

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

10.06.87

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

22.02.83

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

23.04.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

03.04.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

10.07.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

05.11.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

05.04.83

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

24.08.84

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

06.04.72

1.1.08 to 31.12.08 Not available

05.11.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

15.10.85

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

11.03.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

11.10.88

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

26.03.87

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

04.04.80

1.1.08 to 30.9.10 Not available

01.06.84

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

30.12.83

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

12.03.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

01.06.82

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 07366 2017 07368 2017 07370 2017 07372 2017 07373 2017 07374 2017 07375 2017 07376 2017 15950 2016 16286 2016 16287 2016 16463 2016 16467 2016 16517 2016 16518 2016 16519 2016 16520 2016 16521 2016 16522 2016 16609 2016 16610 2016 16611 2016 16612 2016 16613 2016 16614 2016 57 of 2014 43 of 2014 39 of 2014 61 of 2014 47 of 2014 22 of 2014 62 of 2014 67 of 2014 715 of 2013 716 of 2013 720 of 2013 718 of 2013 723 of 2013 724 of 2013 722 of 2013 725 of 2013 717 of 2023 719 of 2013 726 of 2013 721 of 2013 728 of 2013 729 of 2013 727 of 2013 730 of 2013 731 of 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

06.09.16 Amritsar Yash Pal

06.09.16 Amritsar

28.10.15 Patiala

28.10.15 Patiala Raj Kumar Raj Davinder Varinder- jit Singh Shamsher Masih Dilbagh Singh Surinder Singh Vinod Kumar Arvinder Singh Rajinder Singh Manoj Kumar Leading Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Fireman Municipal Driver Operator Leading Fireman Driver Operator Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Amritsar Officer Municipal Station Corporation, Fire Officer Amritsar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala

28.10.15 Patiala Lovkush Fireman Municipal

28.10.15 Patiala

28.10.15 Patiala Rajesh Kumar Sukh- winder Arun Kumar Rakesh Thapar Sham Sunder Ashok Kumar

28.10.15 Patiala Surinder Kumar Leading Fireman

28.10.15 Patiala

28.10.15 Patiala Raman Kumar Jagar Singh Faqir Chand Balvir Singh Amarjit Singh Leading Fireman Leading Fireman Leading Fireman Leading Fireman

28.10.15 Patiala Mukesh Kumar Driver/ Operator Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Fireman Municipal Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala 291 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) Period of Claim

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available Service Parti- culars, if 02.04.80

30.05.80

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

31.05.93

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

01.09.09

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

15.10.85

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

14.03.96

1.1.05 to April, 2014 Not available

28.03.89

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available

01.06.82

1.1.08 to April, 2014 Not available Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 255207 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 253741 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 256828 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 239222 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 274522 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 254415 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 256487 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 281973 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 263194 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 259899 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 285686 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 264804 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 282223 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 338833 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 323080 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 343741 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 246392 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 16692 2016 16693 2016 16694 2016 16695 2016 16696 2016 16697 2016 16698 2016 16699 2016 16700 2016 16701 2016 16702 2016 16703 2016 16704 2016 16705 2016 16706 2016 16707 2016 16708 2016 16709 2016 16710 2016 16711 2016 16712 2016 16713 2016 16714 2016 16715 2016 16716 2016 747 of 2013 745 of 2013 736 of 2013 732 of 2013 749 of 2013 735 of 2013 228 of 2014 757 of 2013 756 of 2013 758 of 2013 740 of 2013 741 of 2013 742 of 2013 746 of 2013 743 of 2013 734 of 2013 750 of 2013 737 of 2013 751 of 2013 733 of 2013 760 of 2013 759 of 2013 738 of 2013 748 of 2013 739 of 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

28.10.15 Patiala

28.10.15 Patiala Karam Singh Hukam Chand Swarn Chand Vijay Kumar Sunil Kumar Lachh- man Dass Sharma Vijay Kumar Gurdev Singh Dewan Chand Hari Kishan Driver Sub Fire Officer Sub Fire Officer Driver/ Operator Leading Fireman Sub Fire Officer Leading Fireman Leading Fireman Sub Fire Officer Leading Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala

28.10.15 Patiala Nachh- atar Singh Fireman Municipal

28.10.15 Patiala Jaswant Singh Driver/ Operator

28.10.15 Patiala Mangal Mal Driver

28.10.15 Patiala Des Raj Leading Fireman

28.10.15 Patiala

28.10.15 Patiala Om Parkash Leading Fireman Kuldeep Singh Driver/ Operator Ram Kumar Sharma Madan Gopal Karam Singh ADFO Sub Fire Officer Leading Fireman Gurchara n Singh Driver/ Operator Harpreet Kaur wd/o Gurdeep Singh Gurdial Singh Sub Fire Officer Leading Fireman Jatinder Pal Sub Fire Officer Driver Jagmoha n Lal Vishal Kumar Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala 292 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 373338 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 356921 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 294346 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 280606 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.08.12 28654 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 289171 Not available

01.10.99 to 31.10.03 332345 Not available

01.10.99 to 30.06.03 59331 Not available

01.10.99 to 31.10.06 132472 Not available

01.10.99 to 31.03.02 36515 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 259496 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 298018 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 278756 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.08.06 110644 Not available

01.01.99 to 30.04.04 81421 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 286638 Not available

19.01.01 to 18.09.03 82166 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 360355 Not available

01.10.99 to 31.05.05 88140 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 296663 Not available

01.10.99 to 30.09.13 344067 Not available

01.10.99 to 31.03.03 49949 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 485412 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.07.02 38500 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.10.13 198952 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 16717 2016 25726 2016 744 of 2013 274 of 2014

28.10.15 Patiala Bua Ditta Fireman Municipal Corporation, Patiala

22.12.15 Patiala Karam Singh Fireman Municipal Council, Sangrur 25728 2016 25729 2016 798 of 2014 801 of 2014

22.12.15 Patiala

22.12.15 Patiala Arun Kumar Amar Nath Fireman Municipal Council, Sangrur Fireman Municipal Council, Sangrur 25730 2016 25731 2016 25732 2016 25734 2016 25735 2016 804 of 2014 802 of 2014 799 of 2014 803 of 2014 800 of 2014 16319 2018 17179 2018 195 of 2012 59 of 2012

22.12.15 Patiala Harkirat Singh Driver

22.12.15 Patiala Sudar- shan Jain Leading Fireman Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur

22.12.15 Patiala Raj Kumar Fireman Municipal Council, Sangrur

22.12.15 Patiala Mohinder Singh Driver Municipal Council, Sangrur

22.12.15 Patiala Labh Singh Fireman Municipal Council, Sangrur

14.12.17 Ludhiana Jit Singh

14.12.17 Ludhiana Surinder Pal Sub Fire Officer Fireman Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Fire Brigade Department, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Service Parti- culars, if Not available

05.10.85 ; Sub Fire Officer – 09.12.98 ; & F.S.O.- 01.07.11 09.07.79

09.07.79 ; Leading Fireman 12.04.93 ; Station Fire Officer 09.12.98 09.07.79 . Retired 31.01.13 Retired 31.05.12 25.08.85 . Leading Fireman 11.01.08 13.07.79 . Retired 30.09.11 09.07.79 . Station Fire Officer 31.12.98 . Not available Not available 106 17965 2018 206 of 2011

14.12.17 Ludhiana Harish Chander Fireman Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Not available 206 of 2011 206 of 2011

14.12.17 Ludhiana

14.12.17 Ludhiana Ashish Rai Rajinder Kumar Fireman -do- Fireman -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 293 Period of Claim

01.01.99 to 31.07.07 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 120660

21.09.01 to 25.11.13 454140

01.06.08 to 30.09.14 344818

01.06.08 to 30.09.14 382543

01.06.08 to 31.01.13 197837

01.06.08 to 31.05.12 183723

01.06.08 to 30.09.14 291776

01.06.08 to 30.09.11 111699

13.07.11 to 30.09.14 234062

14.08.07 onwards July, 2007 September , 2009 & double of wages as overtime @ 4 hours daily, from 14.08.07 till date. July, 2007 September , 2009 & double of wages as overtime @ 4 hours daily, from 14.08.07 till date. -do- -do- 1830000 1332187 overtime @ 4 hours per day from 14.08.07 till date of applica- Not available -do- -do- 294 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) Period of Claim -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department Fireman -do- Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Leading Fireman Keyman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Fireman. -do- -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- -do- -do- 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011

14.12.17 Ludhiana

14.12.17 Ludhiana Navrang Singh Kaka Singh Nabresh Kumar Ajay Kumar Surinder Kumar Smt. Bhupinder Kaur wd/o Bhupinder Singh Pawan Kumar Balwinder Singh Rajesh Kumar Pankaj Sharma Vijay Bhandari Kewal Krishan Smt. Usha Rani wd/o Manohar Lal Gaurav Bhardwaj Narinder Singh Pardeep Kumar Inderjit Singh Raj Kumar Vijay Kumar Om Parkash Radhey Shyam Bachint Singh Jagraj Singh Hema Devi wd/o Puran Singh Rekha Rani wd/o Rajan Parshotta m Dass Bhushan Kumar Ramesh Chander Mandhir Singh Daljit Singh Ram Lal Raman Kumar Harmail Singh Kamal Kumar PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement -do- -do- -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

14.12.17 Ludhiana

28.04.23 Ludhiana Ashok Kumar Buta Singh Man- Singh Rajan Kumar Kiran Kumar Ravi Kumar Sunny Kumar Vishal Kumar Lovlesh Sood Ranbir Singh Surjit Singh Darshan Singh Manjit Singh Narain Singh Vicky Kalyan Balwinder Singh Rajesh Kumar Manoj Kumar Raj Kumar Bahadur Singh Singh Dinesh Kumar Fireman -do- Leading Fireman Driver Operator -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Municipal Corporation, Moga Municipal Corporation, Moga

26.08.22 Bathinda Amar Singh Leading Fireman

26.08.22 Bathinda

26.08.22 Bathinda Arun Kumar (since deceased ) through LRs (i) Navneet Kumar (son); & (ii) Raj Rani (widow) Baljit Singh Station Fire Officer Driver

26.08.22 Bathinda Nachhtter Singh Driver

26.08.22 Bathinda

03.06.14 Patiala

03.06.14 Patiala Jagdish Kumar Pawan Kumar Baldev Rai Municipal Corporation, Moga Municipal Corporation, Moga Municipal Corporation, Moga Station Fire Officer Fireman Municipal Council, Rajpura -do- Fireman 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 206 of 2011 255 of 2018 145 of 2014 144 of 2014 146 of 2014 143 of 2014 147 of 2014 1302 (1) of 08 1302 (2) of 08 107 108 109 18743 2023 02603 2023 02627 2023 110 111 112 113 02636 2023 02645 2023 05376 2023 01530 2015 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 295 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) Period of Claim -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

19.06.15 .

19.06.15 onwards 850735 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.03.14 480000 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.08.13 425000 Not available

01.01.99 to 31.03.14 480000 Not available

09.01.98 to 31.05.08 219780 -do-

08.01.98 to 31.05.08 211680 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 1302 (3) of 08 1302 (5) of 08 1302 (6) of 08 1302 (8) of 08 1302 (9) of 08 1302 (10) of 08 1302 (11) of 08 1302 (12) of 08 1302 (13) of 08 1302 (14) of 08 1302 (15) of 08 1302 (16) of 08 1302 (17) of 08 1302 (18) of 08 1302 (19) of 08 1302 (20) of 08 1302 (21) of 08 570 of 2012 995 of 08 114 115 01723 2015 07633 2018

03.06.14 Patiala

03.06.14 Patiala Dinesh Kumar Sadhu Singh Harbans Singh Amarpree t Singh Gurchara n Singh

03.06.14 Patiala Malkit Gir

03.06.14 Patiala

03.06.14 Patiala Ashish Walia Rakesh Kumar Manmoha n Singh Dhian Singh Sucha Singh Jarnail Singh Parwinder Singh Madan Lal Babu Ram Fireman -do- Station Fire Officer Driver -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Station Fire Officer Fireman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- Station Fire Officer Fireman Leading Fireman Leading Fireman -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

03.06.14 Patiala Gurnam Singh Leading Fireman

03.06.14 Patiala Mohinder Singh Driver -do-

15.07.14 Patiala

13.08.14 Patiala Gokal Chand Leading Fireman Dalwinder Singh Station Fire Officer Municipal Council, Rajpura Municipal Council, Fatehgarh Sahib 296 Service Parti- culars, if -do- Period of Claim

09.01.98 to 31.05.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 211680 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.01.97 to 31.05.08 348091

01.01.97 to 31.01.02 102432

08.01.98 to 31.05.08 241680

01.01.97 to 31.05.08 348091

09.01.98 to 31.05.08 211680

08.01.98 to 31.05.08 219780

01.01.97 to 31.05.08 219780

01.01.97 to 31.05.08 314290

01.01.97 to 31.05.08 250839

17.03.03 to 31.05.08 397903

17.03.03 to 31.05.08 87750

01.01.97 to 31.05.08 364695

09.01.98 to 31.05.08 364695

01.01.97 to 31.05.08 327929 Not available

01.01.97 to 31.08.12 1165029 Not available

11.10.99 to 31.03.08 (Claimed). Relief granted 11.09.05 to 10.09.08, when he actually worked on Saturdays 01.10.99 to 30.06.11 147717 240000 116 117 28835 2017 16743 2017 121 of 2011 103 of 2011

30.05.17 Bathinda

11.08.16 Bathinda Joginder Singh Joginder Kaur wd/o Mukhtiar Singh, being LR PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Fireman Municipal

25.10.85 Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib Fireman Municipal - 120000 Council, Kotkapura CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 118 20708 2014 4 of 2009

06.02.14 Bathinda Gurbaksh Singh Station Fire Officer 297 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 187927 190538 132917 183675 183675 183675 100673 152901 132000 132154 150387 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available

01.10.99 to 31.03.08 -do- -do-

01.09.99 to 31.03.08 150387

01.08.01 to 31.03.08 80411 Not available

01.10.97 to 30.11.05 55806 -do- -do-

01.10.97 to 31.10.02 54246 Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Not available

01.10.99 to June, 2008 96587 Municipal Council, Kotkapura (Fire Brigade Branch) -do- -do- Leading Fireman Fireman Fireman Municipal Council, Kotkapura (Fire Brigade Branch) -do- Fireman Fireman -do- Fireman Fireman Nagar Council, Kotkapura -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Municipal Corporation SAS Nagar -do- -do- Municipal Corporation SAS Nagar Station Fire Officer Station Fire Officer Fire Station Officer Station Fire Officer (Retd.) Assis- Deputy Fire Officer (Retd.) Fireman (deceas ed) Fireman (deceas ed) Fireman (deceas ed) Leading Fireman Fireman Municipal Council, Dera Bassi -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Not available

01.10.99 to 30.03.08 147717 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 92563 92563 92536 92563 87602 92563 119 20709 2014 120 04600 2015 121 23551 2014 122 23935 2014 4 of 2009 4 of 2009 3 of 2009 3 of 2009 3 of 2009 123 of 2009 123 of 2009 123 of 2009 123 of 2009 996 of 08 996 of 08 996 of 08 1000 of 08 1000 of 08

06.02.14 Bathinda

06.02.14 Bathinda Ashok Kumar Avtar Singh Gurdas Singh

06.02.14 Bathinda

19.02.14 Bathinda

31.03.14 Patiala

21.07.14 Patiala Arun Kumar Jangi Ram Jaswinder Singh Tarsem Lal Resham Singh Harmail Singh Karam Chand Davinder Singh Avtar Singh Ram Parkash

21.07.14 Patiala Balwinder Singh 123 08470 2015 1001 of 08

25.04.14 Patiala 124 08475 2015 1001 of 08 1001 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08

25.04.14 Patiala

25.04.14 Patiala Manjit Kaur wd/o Amarjit Singh, being LR Navjot Kaur d/o Amarjit Singh, being LR Karamvir Singh s/o Amarjit Singh, being LR Isher Singh Rajiv Kumar Amritpal Singh Mohinder Kaur Singh Gurdial Singh Jaswant Singh PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 298 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) Period of Claim

01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08

01.10.99 to 30.03.08 01.10.99 to 30.03.08

01.10.99 to 30.03.08 92563 92563 95873 95873 93396 102298 92563 92563 95873 101507 820477 1029917 Municipal Council, Dera Bassi -do- Not available -do- Municipal Council, Dera Bassi Not available

01.10.99 to April, 2005 57609 Fireman -do- Driver Operator Driver Operator Driver Operator Sub Fire Officer Fireman -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Fireman -do- Driver Operator Station Fire Officer -do- -do- -do- Leading Fireman Assis- Deputy Fire Officer (Retd.) Fireman (deceas ed) Sub Fire Officer Fire Officer Municipal Council, Malerkotla -do- Not available

01.10.99 to 30.04.08 152766 Not available

01.10.99 to 30.04.08 147903 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 989 of 08 998 of 08 998 of 08

25.04.14 Patiala

25.04.14 Patiala 125 09456 2015 126 09458 2015 999 of 08

25.04.14 Patiala 127 03072 2015 1078 of 08 1078 of 08

15.07.14 Patiala

15.07.14 Patiala Baldev Multani Baljit Singh Mohinder Pal Sukhdev Singh Anil Kumar Kuldeep Singh Randhir Singh Gurchara n Singh Jagjit Singh Bhupinder Singh Shiv Kumar Labh Singh Kulwinder Kaur, Wd/o & LR of Jaswant Singh Gurwinder Kaur, being LR Simranjit Kaur, being LR Hargun Singh, being LR Manjit Singh Swaran Singh Walia PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 299 ANNEXURE: ‘C’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF OCTROI & OCTROI + FIRE BRIGADE [Total 3 cases, Sr. Nos. 128 to 130] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 128 11624 2015 1386 of 08

13.05.14 Patiala Mangat Ram Peon

13.05.14 Patiala Satpal Clerk Service Parti- culars, if Octroi Check Posts -do- Octroi Department, Municipal Council, Dera Bassi -do- 1386 (01) of 08 1386 (02) of 08 1386 (03) of 08 1386 (04) of 08 1386 (05) of 08 1386 (06) of 08 1386 (07) of 08 1386 (08) of 08 1386 (09) of 08 1386 (10) of 08 1386 (11) of 08 1386 (12) of 08 1386 (13) of 08 1386 (14) of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

13.05.14 Patiala Savitri Devi Sweeper -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala Har Sarup Sweeper -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala

13.05.14 Patiala Jarnail Singh Om Parkash Jaswant Singh Paramjit Singh Peon -do- -do- Sweeper -do- -do- S.I. -do- -do- Clerk -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala Lajo Devi Sweeper -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala

13.05.14 Patiala Lakhvir Singh Ravinder Kumar Clerk -do- -do- Clerk -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala Dev Raj Plumber Helper -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala

13.05.14 Patiala Krishna Devi Varinder Singh Rajesh Kumar Sweeper -do- -do- -do- -do- Sanitary Supervis Peon -do- -do- Amount Claimed (in Rs.)

209163.30

301228.10

209163.30

155337.70

378931.80

248297.60

175208.80 248297

297716.70

250232.50

191098.30

232094.10

209163.30 Period of Claim Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department Service Parti- culars, if -do-

13.05.14 Patiala

13.05.14 Patiala Rajinder Kumar Gurbhej Singh Gulshan Kumar Peon -do- Peon -do- -do- Peon -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala Ram Pal Plumber -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala

13.05.14 Patiala Ashok Kumar Faqir Chand Junior Assis- Junior Assis- -do- -do- -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala Harcharan Singh Restorer -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala

13.05.14 Patiala Rajpal Singh Ujaggar Singh Parwinder Singh Jaswinder Singh Peon -do- -do- Clerk -do- -do- Clerk -do- -do- Clerk -do- -do-

13.05.14 Patiala Jeet Singh -do- -do- Junior Assis-

13.05.14 Patiala Ram Gopal Clerk -do- -do- 1386 (15) of 08 1386 (16) of 08 1386 (17) of 08 1386 (18) of 08 1386 (19) of 08 1386 (20) of 08 1386 (21) of 08 1386 (22) of 08 1386 (23) of 08 1386 (24) of 08 1386 (25) of 08 1386 (26) of 08 1386 (27) of 08 1386 (20) of 08

13.05.14 Patiala Ashwani Kumar Kulwinder Singh Junior Assis- Octroi Clerk -do- -do-

04.02.80 Nagar Council, Kapurthala -Nil- -Nil- -Nil- 129 14253 2002 Period of Claim Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Jan., 1996 to August, 2006 Seeking manda- mous in terms of Sirhind’s judge- ment. No applica- tion u/s 33-C(2) filed. -do- 300 Amount Claimed (in Rs.)

209163.30

316832.10

384395.60

280057.60

344517.90

155337.70

248942.10 248297

227099.60

354196.50

227098.60

344517.90 Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Raj Kumar- 2 Jaswinder Singh-2 Satnam Singh Rakesh Kumar Octroi Clerk Octroi Clerk Octroi Clerk Octroi Clerk -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

01.05.96

01.05.97 -do-

01.08.75 -do-

27.08.01 -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 301 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Gurnam Singh Kewal Singh Bhulla Singh Ranjit Singh Ravinder Singh Octroi Clerk Junior Assis- Octroi Clerk Octroi Clerk Junior Assist- Octroi Clerk Sewer- Fireman Leading Fireman Fireman Jaswinder Singh-1 Gurmeet Singh Narinder Kumar Parvesh Kumar Raj Kumar Ajay Kumar Driver Driver Sarwan Singh Ram Tirath Ajay Goyal Rattan Singh Santokh Singh Dalbir Singh Rajinder Singh Panna Lal Driver Fireman Fireman Fireman Fireman Fireman Fireman Amrik Singh -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Inspec- (Retired 31.08.01 Octroi Branch) Fireman Service Parti- culars, if 26.05.93 -do-

01.01.78 -do-

01.05.81 -do- 1998 -do-

22.10.96 -do-

06.07.96 -do-

04.11.85 -do- 1975 -do-

06.04.76 -do-

23.10.96 24.02.2K 20.04.89

23.10.96 05.03.2K 01.07.89 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

04.04.89 -do-

23.06.99 -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Seeking manda- mous in terms of Sirhind’s judge- ment. No applica- tion u/s 33-C(2) filed. -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -Nil- -do- -Nil- -do- -do- -Nil- Harbhajan Lal Kishori Lal Jaswinder Singh 130 17042 2002 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kotkapura (Fire Brigade) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Satnam Singh Ranjit Pal Gurbaksh Singh Satwant Singh Ashok Kumar Mukhtiar Singh Harpal Singh Harwinder Singh Arun Kumar F.S.O. -do- S.F.O. S.F.O. -do- -do- L.F.M. -do- L.F.M. -do- L.F.M. -do- Driver Operator Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Gurdas Singh Harmail Singh Balwinder Singh Gurcharan Singh Tarsem Lal Resham Singh Avtar Singh Gurlal Singh Jangi Ram Yash Pal Uday Chand Balkar Singh Karnail Singh Subhash Chander Surinder Kumar Vijay Kumar Jaswinder Singh Gurdarsha n Singh Hukam Chand Ramesh Kumar Prem Nath Bagicha Singh Vijay Sehgal Joginder Singh Shinder Pal Singh Mehal Singh Gurcharan Singh Vinod Kumar Rajesh Kumar Joginder Singh Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman Fireman Fireman Fireman Fireman L.F.M. (Retd.) Driver (Retd.) Station Fire Officer Fire Station Officer Station Fire Officer Leading Fireman Leading Fireman Leading Fireman Driver Operator Fireman -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman Fireman -do- -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman -do- Fireman Executive Officer, Municipal Council (Fire Brigade), Muktsar Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Banur -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Jaspal Chand Octori Clerk -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Rattan Lal Teja Singh Octori Clerk Octori Clerk Octori Clerk Anil Kumar Octori Clerk Sohan Lal 302 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Joginder Singh Ashok Kumar Jiwan Ram Devi Sant Parma Ram Baljit Singh Jasmer Singh Satnam Singh Jaswant Singh Karam Pal Darshan Singh Varinder Singh Octori Clerk Octori Clerk Peon Peon Peon Pump Driver Octori Clerk (Retd.) Octori Clerk (Retd.) Octori Clerk Octori Clerk Octori Clerk Sanitary Supervis -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Derabassi -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 303 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 304 ANNEXURE: ‘D’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDINGS & ROADS), PUNJAB [TOTAL 82 cases, Sr. Nos. 131 to 212] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 131 13715 2017 630 of 08

30.03.16 Patiala Joginder Singh Beldar Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala -do- 631 of 08 632 of 08 633 of 08 634 of 08 635 of 08 637 of 08 638 of 08 640 of 08 641 of 08 642 of 08 643 of 08 646 of 08 648 of 08 649 of 08 652 of 08 653 of 08 654 of 08 655 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

30.03.16 Patiala

30.03.16 Patiala Joginder Singh Mohinder Singh Mahinder Singh Khem Bahadur Kuldeep Singh Beldar Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Chowki- -do- Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Jeet Singh Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Parkash Singh Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Vahid Husain Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Pritam Singh Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala

30.03.16 Patiala Balwinder Singh Manpreet Singh Pal Singh through LR Krishna Devi Manku Ram Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Painter -do- Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Gulzar Singh Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Davinder Pal Singh Moter Mate -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Bhola Parsad Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Ram Kumar

30.03.16 Patiala Gurmel Singh Carpen- -do- Beldar -do- Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.01.97 31.05.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 175560 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 205656 171456 205656 214776 123576 205656 211584 199728 161424 187872 160056 274968 156864 274968 230436 163392 245532 217512

30.03.16 Patiala Sanjay Kumar Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Pritam Singh Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala

30.03.16 Patiala Rajinder Singh Nachatar Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Net Ram Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Hajura Singh Beldar -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Harnek Chand Carpen- -do-

30.03.16 Patiala Man Bahadur Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Patiala Lachhman Dass Work Mistri 133 06411 2015 908 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Deepak Batra Work Mistri 134 06412 2015 909 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Lakha Singh Mason 135 06413 2015 913 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Sukhdev Singh Painter 136 06414 2015 901 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Madan Gopal Motor Mate 137 06415 2015 912 of 08 138 06416 2015 910 of 08 139 06425 2015 893 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Ram Ujagar Painter

01.10.14 Patiala Mewa Singh Painter

01.10.14 Patiala Moti Lal Mason PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 305 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 161424 205656 217968 217512 205656 217512 266760 131328 190303 Period of Claim

01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 175104 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 299592 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 216144 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 266760 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 216144 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 191976 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 23832 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 140 23543 2016 290 of 2011

21.10.15 Patiala Beldar Amarjeet Kaur wd/o Gurdial Singh 141 24393 2014 845 of 08

30.05.14 Patiala Lal Chand Painter Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Balbir Singh Carpen-

30.05.14 Patiala Krishan Lal Mason -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Ram Chand

30.05.14 Patiala Harnek Singh

30.05.14 Patiala Om Parkash

30.05.14 Patiala Parkash Singh

30.05.14 Patiala Kewal Singh

30.05.14 Patiala Ishar Singh

30.05.14 Patiala Sat Pal Floor Polisher -do- Beldar -do- Motor Mate Work Mistri Carpen- Mason/ Carpen- Painter -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Mithai Lal Painter -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Harnek Singh Painter -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Moti Singh Beldar -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Inderjit Singh Beldar -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Sucha Ram Painter -do-

30.05.14 Patiala

30.05.14 Patiala Amarjeet Singh Gauri Shankar Painter -do- Mason -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Gurcharan Singh Motor Mate -do-

30.05.14 Patiala

30.05.14 Patiala Rajinder Singh Darshan Kaur Babli wd/o Swaran Singh Rajinder Kumar Beldar -do- Painter -do- Painter -do-

30.05.14 Patiala Ram Harak Painter -do- 846 of 08 847 of 08 848 of 08 849 of 08 851 of 08 853 of 08 854 of 08 855 of 08 856 of 08 857 of 08 858 of 08 860 of 08 861 of 08 862 of 08 864 of 08 865 of 08 866 of 08 867 of 08 869 of 08 873 of 08 902 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 306 Service Parti- culars, if Died on 16.06.10 Period of Claim

01.01.97 30.05.10 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 418200 Not available

01.01.97 29.02.08 296307 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 203832 216144 210216 217512 283176 169632 216144 244416 299592 259464 266760 216144 205656 259464 206228 216144 299592 171456 259464 266760 259464

01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 142 14973 2015 899 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Hira Lal Floor Polisher 143 14983 2015 905 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Ravi Hussain Painter 144 14984 2015 911 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Sukhdev Singh Mason 145 14985 2015 903 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Madan Lal Beldar 146 14986 2015 891 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Gurcharan Singh Painter 147 14987 2015 898 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Hukam Chand Beldar 148 14988 2015 896 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Mohan Lal Mason 149 14989 2015 916 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Gurmeet Singh Mason 150 14990 2015 895 of 08 151 14991 2015 907 of 08 152 14992 2015 894 of 08 153 14993 2015 915 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Jang Singh Painter

01.10.14 Patiala Ajmer Singh Mason

01.10.14 Patiala Om Parkash Painter

01.10.14 Patiala Neel Money Fitter 154 14994 2015 906 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Raghubir Chand Floor Polisher PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala 307 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.01.97 31.05.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 219792 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 216144 Not available

01.01.97 30.05.08 277704 -- -- -- -- -- 197488

01.01.97 31.05.08 259464

01.01.97 31.05.08 199718

01.01.97 31.05.08 149568

01.01.97 31.05.08 216144

01.01.97 31.05.08 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 268584 -- 299592

01.01.97 31.05.08 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 283176 -- 191976

01.01.97 31.05.08 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 259464 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 155 14995 2015 900 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Santokh Singh Mason 156 14996 2015 897 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Dudh Nath Floor Polisher 157 15720 2015 892 of 08

01.10.14 Patiala Parveen Kumar Work Mistri 158 03011 2016 593 of 08

27.02.15 Patiala Ram Saran Beldar Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division No. 1, Patiala -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Ram Singh Beldar

27.02.15 Patiala Rajesh Kumar Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Daya Ram Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Mehar Singh Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Achhee Lal Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Ram Naresh Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Lotu Ram Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Nek Chand Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala

27.02.15 Patiala Shamsher Singh Chhajju Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Ram Dhiraj Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Daljit Singh Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala

27.02.15 Patiala Bhinder Singh Mohinder Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Mohan Singh Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Muni Lal Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Ram Surat Beldar -do- 594 of 08 595 of 08 596 of 08 597 of 08 598 of 08 599 of 08 600 of 08 601 of 08 602 of 08 603 of 08 604 of 08 606 of 08 607 of 08 608 of 08 609 of 08 610 of 08 611 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 308 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.01.97 31.05.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 237120 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 266760 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 251712 Not available

01.01.97 31.05.08 Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 161424 135432 171456 161424 171456 171456 171456 205656 199728 205656 205656 135432 152760 199728 171456 171456 171456

27.02.15 Patiala Fakiria Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Kirpal Singh Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Rajinder Kumar Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Bishambar Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Subash Chand Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Karamat Ali Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala

27.02.15 Patiala Mukhtiar Singh Jaswant Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Madan Lal Beldar -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Labh Singh

27.02.15 Patiala

27.02.15 Patiala Mason/ Car Painter Painter Motor Mate -do- -do- -do- Beldar -do- Sarju Devi, LR of Moti Lal Harkrishan Singh Joginder Singh Balbir Chand Work Mistri Barjinder Pal Work Mistri -do- -do-

27.02.15 Patiala Darshan Singh Painter -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Sant Ram Beldar

29.01.16 Patiala Karam Singh Beldar Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Sub Division No. 2, Patiala -do- Not available -do-

29.01.16 Patiala

29.01.16 Patiala Mohinder Singh Sardool Singh Beldar -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Balkar Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Kartar Singh Beldar -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 309 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 171456 171456 171456 171456 171456 156864 194256 203832 197448 243960 274056 151550 228305 212952 292968 195312 71153 68055 73829 47727 66318 66361 Period of Claim

01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 Jan., 2007 to Decemb er, 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 612 of 08 613 of 08 614 of 08 615 of 08 617 of 08 619 of 08 620 of 08 621 of 08 622 of 08 623 of 08 624 of 08 625 of 08 626 of 08 627 of 08 632 of 08 633 of 08 355 of 2010 356 of 2010 357 of 2010 358 of 2010 359 of 2010 360 of 2010 159 25140 2016 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department Service Parti- culars, if -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Lalita Parshad Chowki- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Harbans Singh Mate -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Vidya Sagar Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Dharam Pal Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Kaka Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala

29.01.16 Patiala Lajj Kaud wd/o Sher Singh, LR Gurnam Singh Beldar -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Phul Chand Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Gurmeet Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Mohan Singh Chowki- -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Parkash Kaur w/o Jarnail Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Rajvir Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Gurmail Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Sunder Dass Mate -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Mangta Cleaner -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Gyan Singh Cleaner -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Sunder Dass Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Kishan Chand Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Roshan Lal Beldar -do- -do- 361 of 2010 362 of 2010 363 of 2010 364 of 2010 365 of 2010 366 of 2010 367 of 2010 368 of 2010 369 of 2010 370 of 2010 371 of 2010 372 of 2010 373 of 2010 374 of 2010 375 of 2010 376 of 2010 377 of 2010 378 of 2010 379 of 2010 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 310 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 70740 73528 19983 71241 70445 73194 71977 45042 44190 70117 53680 44885 61097 75664 83814 71575 77461 71012 75137 Period of Claim Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department Service Parti- culars, if -do- Beldar -do-

29.01.16 Patiala

29.01.16 Patiala Mahinder Kaur w/o Charan Singh Vinod Parshad Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Jaspal Singh Mate -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Avtar Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Kaka Singh Work Munshi -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Amrik Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Hari Singh Driver -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala

29.01.16 Patiala Kuldeep Singh etc. LRs/o Amar Singh Sanoj Kumar Beldar -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Mangat Ram Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Labh Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Charan Kaur wd/o Sadhu Singh, LR Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Balbir Singh Mate -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Karnail Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala

29.01.16 Patiala Sarban Singh Subhash Kumar Mohinder Singh Mate -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do- Mate -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Bahadur Singh White Washer -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Gian Singh Beldar -do- -do- 381 of 2010 382 of 2010 383 of 2010 384 of 2010 385 of 2010 386 of 2010 387 of 2010 388 of 2010 389 of 2010 390 of 2010 391 of 2010 392 of 2010 393 of 2010 394 of 2010 395 of 2010 396 of 2010 397 of 2010 398 of 2010 399 of 2010 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 311 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 52747 65945 44455 74157 74447 75371 86540 79355 52675 46852 72491 79642 71723 69789 77931 47315 73836 85211 73906 Period of Claim Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

29.01.16 Patiala Chhitru Beldar -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- 400 of 2010 401 of 2010 402 of 2010 403 of 2010 405 of 2010 406 of 2010 407 of 2010 408 of 2010 409 of 2010 410 of 2010 412 of 2010 414 of 2010 415 of 2010 417 of 2010 418 of 2010 419 of 2010 486 of 08 487 of 08 488 of 08 160 23800 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

29.01.16 Patiala Charan Singh Mate -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Baljit Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Diwan Chand Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Vipan Pal Work Munshi -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Bhulla Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Sardara Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Karam Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Raj Kumar Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Gurdial Singh Work Munshi -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Jagtar Singh Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Khem Chand Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala

29.01.16 Patiala Angrej Kaur w/o Baldev Singh Jangir Kaur w/o Karnail Singh Beldar -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Gopi Chand Beldar -do- -do-

29.01.16 Patiala Harbans Singh Work Mistri -do- -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Bhupinder Singh Beldar

23.05.14 Patiala Sita Singh Beldar Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R), Patiala -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Bant Singh Beldar -do- Not available -do- -do- 312 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 70934 69548 45625 67473 85565 73437 75321 69785 73144 92203 44196 75445 61875 60413 54721 82208 268629 268629 268036 Period of Claim Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 Jan., 2007 to Dec., 2009 01.01.97 31.05.08

01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

23.05.14 Patiala Chand Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Mewa Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Boria Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Leea Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala

23.05.14 Patiala Channan Singh Maghar Singh Karamjeet Singh Mate -do- Mate -do- Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Baggu Ram Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Sarup Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Nachattar Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Tara Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Tarsem Lal Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Ranjit Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala

23.05.14 Patiala Gurmail Singh Manjeet Kaur wd/o Bhola Singh Rama Devi wd/o Nanku Ram Hardev Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Budh Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Jagar Singh Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Birbal Cleaner -do-

23.05.14 Patiala

23.05.14 Patiala Tej Kaur wd/o Surjeet Singh Ajaib Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

23.05.14 Patiala Ajiab Singh Mate -do- 489 of 08 490 of 08 491 of 08 493 of 08 494 of 08 495 of 08 496 of 08 497 of 08 498 of 08 499 of 08 500 of 08 501 of 08 503 of 08 505 of 08 506 of 08 507 of 08 508 of 08 509 of 08 510 of 08 511 of 08 512 of 08 1161 of 08 1164 of 08 1387 of 08 161 08994 2015 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 313 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 268629 268036 269222 268036 275745 268036 28000 268629 268036 268036 268036 37408 159327 171970 163572 197216 268036 268036 268036 268036 273211 220604 88819 272780 Period of Claim

09.07.14 Patiala Puran Singh Beldar Not available Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R), Patiala CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 162 163 09000 2015 1170 of 08 13281 2015 40 of 2009

09.07.14 Patiala

04.03.15 Patiala Banso Devi wd/o Jeet Singh, being LR Bharpur Singh Beldar Work Inspec- 164 13291 2015 41 of 2009

10.02.15 Patiala Beldar Ishar Singh through LR Gurmail Kaur 165 13299 2015 46 of 2009

10.02.15 Patiala Narang Singh Beldar 166 01832 2015 39 of 2009

01.10.14 Patiala Rajinder Singh Road Inspec- 167 02234 2015 35 of 2009 168 02271 2015 37 of 2009 169 02272 2015 34 of 2009 170 02277 2015 38 of 2009 171 16020 2013 65 of 2004

01.10.14 Patiala Piara Singh Beldar

01.10.14 Patiala Manjit Singh Mistri

01.10.14 Patiala Dev Raj Beldar

01.10.14 Patiala Hansa Singh Beldar

05.03.13 Patiala Tikka Ram Beldar Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R), Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), National Highway, Division No. 1, Patiala Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Patiala & Nabha 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004

05.03.13 Patiala Mara Ram Mate -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Karnial Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Mate -do- Darshan Singh Lachhman Ram Sant Ram (deceased) through LRs PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 314 Service Parti- culars, if Died on 27.02.07 Period of Claim

01.01.97 26.02.07 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 192780 Not available

01.01.97 31.12.08 425568 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 270860

01.01.97 28.02.08 318864

01.01.97 31.12.08 247728

01.01.97 31.12.08 316992

01.01.97 31.12.08 390624

01.01.97 31.12.08 283296

01.01.97 31.12.08 300144

01.01.97 31.12.08 Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

22.01.01 onwards (as awarded Tribunal) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

05.03.13 Patiala Jarnail Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Shiv Lal Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Beldar Labh Singh (deceased) through LR Mehar Chand (deceased) through LR Amarjit Singh Beldar Beldar -do- -do- -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Baldev Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Balbir Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Jarnail Singh Mate -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Jeet Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Banti wd/o Sukhpal Singh Rulda Ram Beldar -do- Mate -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Hari Ram Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Harmesh Kumar Rajinder Singh (deceased) through LR Ram Nath Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Mate -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Bant Ram Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Jeet Ram Beldar -do- -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Hardam Singh (deceased) through LRs Bant Ram (deceased) through LR Ishar Singh (deceased) through LR Karam Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Kaka Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Karnail Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Beldar Charan Singh (deceased) through LR Amarjit Singh Beldar Beldar Harnam Singh Karnail Singh Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Harjit Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Ram Partap Mate -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Piara Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Gurdhian Singh Gurnam Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do- 315 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 65 of 2004 184 of 2014 172 05640 2017

05.03.13 Patiala Surjit Ram Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Rulda Ram Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala Jagir Singh Beldar -do-

05.03.13 Patiala

05.03.13 Patiala Bakhtora Ram Roshan Lal Babli Kaur wd/o Harbhajan Singh Sheera Ram through LR Husan Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- -do- Beldar -do-

01.02.16 Bathinda Jaspal Singh Beldar 173 05654 2017 190 of 2014

05.01.16 Bathinda Darshan Singh Beldar 174 23048 2014 12 of 2010

04.09.13 Bathinda Darshan Singh Driver (Retd.) 175 23053 2014 331 of 2009

24.01.14 Bathinda Mehar Singh Work 176 23085 2014 4 of 2010

04.09.13 Bathinda Raj Kumar Batra Munshi (Retd.) Work Munshi (Retd.) 177 23087 2014 330 of 2009

04.09.13 Bathinda Ashok Kumar Work Munshi (Retd.) 178 05630 2017 181 of 2014

01.02.16 Bathinda Mangal Singh Driver 179 05635 2017 188 of 2014

05.01.16 Bathinda Ranbir Singh Driver 180 05636 2017 25 of 2014

01.02.16 Bathinda Sat Pal Work Munshi PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 316 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Retired 31.01.12 Not available 615200 Not available

01.12.99 30.04.14 576300 Retired 31.08.06

01.11.99 31.08.06 146404 Retired 31.08.07

01.03.99 31.08.07 166805 Retired 31.08.09

01.11.99 31.08.09 232961 Retired 31.01.08

01.11.99 31.01.08 176711 Retired 31.03.14

01.12.99 31.03.14 685000 Retired 31.01.10

01.12.99 31.01.10 575102 Retired 31.05.12

01.12.99 31.05.12 575000 Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 181 05637 2017 187 of 2014

01.02.16 Bathinda Mohinder Singh Beldar/ Peon 182 05638 2017 183 of 2014

05.01.16 Bathinda Balbir Singh Driver 183 05639 2017 189 of 2014

05.01.16 Bathinda Mohinder Singh Beldar 184 05656 2017 182 of 2014

01.02.16 Bathinda Mohinder Singh Cleaner/ Driver 185 05921 2017 186 of 2014 186 05922 2017 185 of 2014

05.01.16 Bathinda Balkar Singh Ex. Survey-

05.01.16 Bathinda Jit Singh Beldar 187 06226 2017 95 of 2014

05.01.16 Bathinda Rajesh Kumar Motor Mate 188 19284 2014 310 of 2009

04.09.13 Bathinda Amarjit Sharma 189 19285 2014 311 of 2009

04.09.13 Bathinda Rattan Paul Sharma

04.09.13 Bathinda Vijay Pal Work Inspec- (Retd.) Work Munshi (Retd.) Store Keeper (Retd.) 190 19287 2014 5 of 2010 191 10747 2016 180 of 2014

01.02.16 Bathinda Ajit Singh Driver 192 07382 2017 22 of 2014

07.01.16 Bathinda Joginder Singh Ex. Driver 193 07387 2017 28 of 2014

07.01.16 Bathinda Bishna Ram Ex. Driver PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Construction Division No. 3, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Construction Division No. 3, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Construction Division No. 3, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Construction Division No. 3, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Central Works Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Central Works Division, Ferozepur 317 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.12.99 31.03.14 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 540000 Retired 28.02.11

01.12.99 28.02.11 624000 Not available Not available 744000 Retired 31.03.13

01.12.99 31.03.13 584000 Retired 31.04.12

01.12.99 30.04.12 525000 Retired 30.03.14

01.12.99 30.03.14 745000 Retired 31.01.14

01.12.99 31.01.14 525000 Retired 31.01.06

01.11.99 31.01.06 155005 Retired 30.09.05

01.11.99 30.09.05 94682 Retired 31.03.06

01.11.99 31.03.06 160006 Retired 31.10.10 Not available 594000 Retired 31.12.11

01.12.99 31.12.11 556000 Retired 31.05.09

01.12.99 31.05.09 784000 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 194 07457 2017 26 of 2014

07.01.16 Bathinda Shingara Singh Ex. Driver 195 07548 2017 96 of 2014 196 07554 2017 32 of 2014

07.01.16 Bathinda Sultan Masih Beldar

07.01.16 Bathinda Lamber 197 23252 2014 329 of 2009

04.09.13 Bathinda Anand Kumar Aggarwal 198 07555 2017 27 of 2014

07.01.16 Bathinda Tarsem Lal 199 17714 2013 156 of 08

12.03.13 Bathinda Gurbachan Lal Beldar Ex. Mate Re- search Assis- (Retd.) Ex. Driver 156 of 08 156 of 08 159 of 08 159 of 08 159 of 08 242 of 2009 200 17715 2013 201 04697 2014

12.03.13 Bathinda Labh Singh Beldar

12.03.13 Bathinda Mela Singh Mate -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Veer Singh Beldar

12.03.13 Bathinda

12.03.13 Bathinda Mata Parshad Roop Singh Beldar Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

06.11.13 Bathinda Roop Singh Beldar Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Central Works Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Central Works Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Central Works Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Road & Bridges Division, PWD (B&R), Ferozepur Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Central Works Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Faridkot Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Faridkot Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Faridkot -do- 318 Service Parti- culars, if Retired 31.08.12 Period of Claim

01.12.99 31.08.12 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 475000 Retired 31.01.14

01.12.99 31.01.14 575000 Retired 31.12.08

01.12.99 31.12.08 475000 Retired 31.12.08

01.11.99 31.12.08 298608 Retired 31.08.08

01.12.99 31.08.08 674000 Not available

01.11.99 31.05.08 125822 -do- -do- Not available

01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 onwards 125822 125822 125822 125822 125822 148690

01.01.99 30.11.05 148690

01.01.99 31.10.05 125822 125768 125768

01.11.99 31.05.08

01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08

06.10.72 . Retired 30.11.05

27.08.68 . Retired 31.10.05 Not available -do- -do- 202 04960 2014 242 of 2009

06.11.13 Bathinda Gura Singh Beldar

12.03.13 Bathinda Prabh Dayal Mate

12.03.13 Bathinda Kishori Lal Beldar

12.03.13 Bathinda Nagri Ram Beldar -do- 203 17718 2013 151 of 08 151 of 08 151 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

12.03.13 Bathinda Jit Ram Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Dhanna Singh Beldar -do- -do- 204 17730 2013 205 17735 2013 206 17751 2013 207 17816 2013 208 24167 2013 151 of 08 151 of 08 157 of 08 157 of 08 157 of 08 157 of 08 157 of 08 153 of 08 153 of 08 153 of 08 153 of 08 153 of 08 152 of 08 152 of 08 152 of 08 152 of 08 152 of 08 158 of 08 158 of 08 158 of 08 158 of 08 158 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

12.03.13 Bathinda Harpal Singh Beldar

12.03.13 Bathinda Lal Singh Beldar Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Faridkot -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Chhinder Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Phoola Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Bohar Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Baldev Singh Mate Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Faridkot -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda

12.03.13 Bathinda Resham Singh Pritam Singh Beldar Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Billu Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Jagar Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Dalip Singh Mate

12.03.13 Bathinda Hukam Chand Beldar Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Faridkot -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Sadhu Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Naranjan Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Roor Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Sadhu Singh Beldar

12.03.13 Bathinda Hakam Singh Beldar Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Faridkot -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Atma Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Jora Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Lachhman Singh Beldar -do-

13.03.13 Bathinda Harnek Singh Work- Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Construction Division, Moga -do- 319 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08

01.11.99 31.04.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 onwards

01.11.99 onwards 01.11.99 onwards 01.11.99 onwards 01.11.99 onwards 01.11.99 31.05.08

01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08

01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 31.05.08 01.11.99 onwards Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 125768 125768 125768 95554 125768 125768 125768 170402 125822 85504 40034 53850 125822 125768 125768 125768 125768 125822 125768 125768 125768 125768 35461 Service Parti- culars, if -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available

13.03.13 Bathinda

13.03.13 Bathinda Bakshish Singh Ruldu Singh Mate Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 37082 35735 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 437 of 08 154 of 08 154 of 08 154 of 08 154 of 08 155 of 08 155 of 08 155 of 08 155 of 08 842 of 08 209 24168 2013 210 24176 2013 211 05907 2015

13.03.13 Bathinda Bikker Singh Beldar -do-

13.03.13 Bathinda Karam Singh Beldar -do-

13.03.13 Bathinda

13.03.13 Bathinda Harbhajan Singh Darshan Singh Mahanda Painter -do- Beldar -do- Mate

13.03.13 Bathinda Ishar Singh Mate

13.03.13 Bathinda

13.03.13 Bathinda Niranjan Singh Harbans Singh Jagpal Singh Beldar (Retd.) Beldar (Retd.) Belder -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

13.03.13 Bathinda Baldev Singh Beldar -do-

13.03.13 Bathinda Bikkar Singh Beldar -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda Jagtar Singh Driver

12.03.13 Bathinda Jaspal Singh

12.03.13 Bathinda Angrej Singh

12.03.13 Bathinda Binder Singh

12.03.13 Bathinda Harbhajan Singh Road Inspec- Road Inspec- Beldar Painter

12.03.13 Bathinda Ruldu Singh Cleaner Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Construction Division, Moga -do- -do- -do- Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Construction Division, Moga -do-

12.03.13 Bathinda

12.03.13 Bathinda Beldar Niranjan Singh Inderjit Singh Work -do- -do-

21.07.14 Patiala Sant Ram Munshi Mali 212 25193 2013 51 of 2004

06.05.13 Ludhiana Sohan Lal Beldar Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Horticulture Division, Phase-I, Mohali Superintendin g Engineer, PWD (B&R), Circle Office, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana -do- 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

06.05.13 Ludhiana

06.05.13 Ludhiana Gurmukh Singh Malla Singh Beldar Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Chotta Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Jarnail Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Bhola Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Nirbhai Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Dharma Singh Beldar -do- 320 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 35931 28531 35445 38552 38521 35818 19000 17993 27673 35835 35818 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available

01.11.99 onwards 125831 -do- -do- -do- Not available

01.11.99 onwards

01.11.99 onwards 01.11.99 onwards 140617 113833 94467 113247 -do- -do- -do- -- 125831 6510 132831 13526 -do- -do- -do-

01.01.97 31.05.08 Not available

01.12.99 30.04.04 56956 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 43750 58650 58650 45872 56956 38400 48450 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

06.05.13 Ludhiana Dass Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana

06.05.13 Ludhiana Beldar Beldar Gurnam Singh Charan Singh Balbeer Singh Pritam Singh Mate Mate -do- -do- -do- -do- Bahadur Singh Bhagwan Singh Jagan Nath Bahadur Singh Mohinder Singh Labh Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Mate -do- Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Parma Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Amar Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Amrik Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Teja Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Bhajan Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Jarnail Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana

06.05.13 Ludhiana Darbara Singh Randhir Singh Jang Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Manjit Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana

06.05.13 Ludhiana Beldar Mukhtiar Singh Karma Singh Mate

06.05.13 Ludhiana Teja Singh (Retd.) Beldar -do- -do- -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana

06.05.13 Ludhiana Amar Kaur wd/o Bant Singh Ramesh Kumar Jang Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Mehar Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Prem Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Dass Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Manjit Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana

06.05.13 Ludhiana Shamsher Singh Surjit Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Kaka Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana

06.05.13 Ludhiana Gurmail Singh Narang Singh Lakhvir Singh Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- 321 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) Upto 18.04.01 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 56560 58650 56250 56956 56956 61250 62850 42450 56956 42450 54968 58550 56445 58650 48450 56956 56956 56956 57850 57850 54450 43620 43620 43620 43620 54968 43620 55650 58650 56956 45650 54950 54950 45650 56956 56956 51660 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

06.05.13 Ludhiana Tara Singh Beldar -do-

06.05.13 Ludhiana Karnail Singh Beldar -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- 322 Period of Claim -do- -do- Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 43650 45650 51 of 2004 51 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 323 ANNEXURE: ‘E’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PUBLIC HEALTH), PUNJAB [Total 12 cases, Sr. Nos. 213 to 224] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department Store Keeper Store Chowki- Pump Atten- Pump Operator 213 14656 2014 168 of 08

22.10.13 Bathinda Billu Ram 168 of 08 168 of 08 168 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 182 of 08 214 14657 2014 215 14658 2014

22.10.13 Bathinda

22.10.13 Bathinda Gabbar Singh Jagdish Ram Sat Pal Singh

29.10.13 Bathinda Shambu Ram Sewer-

29.10.13 Bathinda Gagar Ram Sewer-

29.10.13 Bathinda Rajinder Parsad Store Chowki- 216 14672 2014 179 of 08

29.10.13 Bathinda Ram Lalit Plumber 179 of 08 171 of 08 171 of 08 171 of 08 180 of 08 217 14673 2014 218 14674 2014

29.10.13 Bathinda

29.10.13 Bathinda Subhash Chander Chand Singh Work Munshi Helper

29.10.13 Bathinda Angad Ram Helper

29.10.13 Bathinda

29.10.13 Bathinda Gurinder Kumar Gurunaib Singh Mali Helper -do- Service Parti- culars, if Not availabl e Period of Claim

01.11.99 30.04.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 118871 -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- Not availabl e 61906 122631 75328 126492 122631 61609

01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08

15.06.99 30.04.08 18.05.01 30.04.08 Not availabl e

01.11.99 30.06.07 161742 Not availabl e Not availabl e

15.06.99 30.04.08 15.06.99 30.04.08 122000 115219 Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- -do- -do- Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- -do- -do- Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- Not availabl e -do- 61906 61906 61906

18.05.01 30.04.08 18.05.01 30.04.08 18.05.01 30.04.08 48026

14.05.03 30.04.08 180 of 08

29.10.13 Bathinda Harpal Singh Sewer- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 219 14685 2014 177 of 08

29.10.13 Bathinda Gyan Singh V. Driver Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- -do- Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- -do- -do- Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, RWS, Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- -do- -do-

29.10.13 Bathinda Babu Lal

29.10.13 Bathinda

29.10.13 Bathinda Gurseet Singh Dwarka Dass

29.10.13 Bathinda Nachhatar Singh

29.10.13 Bathinda Ram Asra

29.10.13 Bathinda Mohan Lal

29.10.13 Bathinda Baljit Singh

29.10.13 Bathinda Ram Dayal

29.10.13 Bathinda Ashok Kumar

29.10.13 Bathinda

29.10.13 Bathinda Inderjit Singh (Ranjit Singh?) Tarsem Singh Gurdip Singh Store Chowki- V. Driver Mali-cum- Chowki- Mali-cum- Chowki- Mali-cum- Chowki- Mali-cum- Chowki- Pump Operator Pump Operator Pump Operator Pump Operator Pump Operator Pump Operator

29.10.13 Bathinda Surat Singh Pump -do- Operator

29.10.13 Bathinda Amar Singh Key Man

29.10.13 Bathinda Raj Kumar

29.10.13 Bathinda Daya Ram Chowki- Chowki- Executive Engineer, RWS, Public Health Division, Faridkot -do- -do-

29.10.13 Bathinda Gurdev Singh Key Man -do-

29.10.13 Bathinda Sohan Lal Pump Operator Executive Engineer, R.W.S., Public Health Division, Faridkot 177 of 08 177 of 08 175 of 08 175 of 08 175 of 08 175 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 220 14696 2014 221 24769 2014 222 24782 2014 223 03231 2015 224 26658 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 324 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 161742 Service Parti- culars, if Not availabl e Period of Claim

01.11.99 30.04.08 -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e 61906 61906 122631 122631 61906 122631 122631 75200 166781 72977 72977 72977 115219 55996 61906 61906 61906 69521

01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08

01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08

01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08

01.11.99 30.04.08

01.11.99 30.04.08 15.06.99 30.04.08 15.06.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08

01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 15.06.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08 172 of 08

29.10.13 Bathinda

29.10.13 Bathinda Ranjeet Singh Pump Operator Gurcharan Singh Pump Operator -do- -do-

29.10.13 Bathinda Nirmal Ram Pump -do- Operator

29.10.13 Bathinda Harcharan Singh Pump Operator -do- 325 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 115219 161742 161742 115219 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- Period of Claim

01.11.99 30.04.08 01.11.99 30.04.08 15.06.99 30.04.08 15.06.99 30.04.08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 326 ANNEXURE: ‘F’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF PUNJAB ROADWAYS [Total 95 cases, Sr. Nos. 225 to 319] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 225 16015 2013 180 of 2004

13.09.12 Bathinda Rajinder Kumar Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Sub Inspec- Conduc- (Retd.) Inspec- (Retd.) Fitter (Retd.)

13.09.12 Bathinda

13.09.12 Bathinda Ajmer Singh Nachhattar Singh Jagtar Singh Vijay Kumar

13.09.12 Bathinda Beli Ram

13.06.12 Bathinda Resham Singh

19.01.12 Bathinda Darshan Singh Sub Inspec-

24.02.12 Bathinda Gurdev Singh Driver (Retd.)

24.02.12 Bathinda

24.02.12 Bathinda Driver Sukhdev (Retd.) Singh Inder Singh Driver (Retd.) Fitter (Retd.) Sadhu Singh

24.02.12 Bathinda

24.02.12 Bathinda Hardeep Singh Mohinder Singh Fitter (Retd.) Driver (Retd.)

24.02.12 Bathinda

13.07.12 Bathinda Darbara Singh Balbir Singh Driver (Retd.) Mecha- (Retired

13.07.12 Bathinda Jagjit Singh A.F.

13.07.12 Bathinda Labh Chand (Retd.) Welder (Retd.) General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- 180 of 2004 180 of 2004 180 of 2004 180 of 2004 180 of 2004 381 of 2002 172 of 2002 522 of 2003 522 of 2003 522 of 2003 120 of 2004 120 of 2004 521 of 2003 521 of 2003 178 of 2004 178 of 2004 178 of 2004 226 227 228 05581 2013 05659 2013 11418 2013 229 11428 2013 230 11460 2013 231 13170 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Period of Claim Service Parti- culars, if 06.01.78 Not Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 280000 available

22.08.78 Not 280000 available

01.04.78 Not 280000 available Sept., 1979 Not available 280000

09.08.77 Not 280000 available

12.11.76 Not 280000

22.09.77 available

22.09.77 30.05.02 230000 Not available

01.04.80 01.01.01 134399 270000 270000 270000 270000 Not available 270000

25.08.73 From due date till actual payment Not available 26.06.74 -do- -do-

10.08.75 From due date till actual payment

16.09.72 -do-

02.12.77 From due date payment

01.01.78 -do- 270000

11.05.71 270000 From due date payment

02.05.79 -do- 270000 -do-

02.03.74 -do- 270000 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 232 13171 2013 113 of 2004

14.06.12 Bathinda Joginder Singh 113 of 2004 113 of 2004 377 of 2004

14.06.12 Bathinda

14.06.12 Bathinda Baldev Singh Mehal Chand Balwant Singh 13172 2013 13173 2013 116 of 2004

14.06.12 Bathinda Roop Lal 233 234 116 of 2004 116 of 2004 116 of 2004 115 of 2004 115 of 2004 520 of 2003 520 of 2003 520 of 2003 121 of 2004 121 of 2004 121 of 2004 181 of 2004 181 of 2004 526 of 2003 526 of 2003 526 of 2003 235 13174 2013 236 16016 2013 237 16017 2013 238 16019 2013 239 16031 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Joginder Singh Sohan Singh Hardev Singh Manjit Singh Gamdoor Singh Basant Singh

14.06.12 Bathinda

13.09.12 Bathinda

13.09.12 Bathinda Jugraj Singh Sukh- mander Singh Mohan Singh

13.09.12 Bathinda

13.09.12 Bathinda Gurcharan Singh Balwinder Singh

13.09.12 Bathinda

13.09.12 Bathinda Basant Singh Amarjit Singh Nathu Ram Helper Electri- (Retd.) Painter Subhash Chander Mehar Singh Service Parti- culars, if 29.09.78 Jan., 1973 Septemb er, 1977 1976

26.09.74 327 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 280000 280000 280000 280000 270000 Period of Claim From due date payment -do- -do- From due date payment From due date payment

20.12.76 -do- 270000

16.05.73 -do- 270000 June, 1970 1970 February , 1968

04.06.89 -do- 270000 270000 From due date payment -do- 270000 270000 From due date payment Dec., 1979 -do- 270000 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do-

07.06.81 -do- 270000 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- 280000 280000 280000 270000 April, 1978 From due date payment Not available 22.11.77 -do- -do-

04.08.81 From due date payment

01.01.78 -do- 270000

12.03.75 250000 From due date payment

06.08.73 -do- 250000 -do-

03.08.73 -do- 250000 Conduc- (Retd.) Inspec- Conduc- (Retd.) Inspec- (Retd.) Inspec- (Retd.) Sub Inspec- Conduc- (Retd.) Inspec- (Retd.) Mecha- (Retired Mecha- (Retd.) Store Atten- Driver (Retd.) Driver (Retd.) Driver (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 328 Service Parti- culars, if 19.09.73 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- 250000

28.10.75 -do- 250000 -do- -do-

13.09.12 Bathinda

13.09.12 Bathinda Chanan Singh Swarn Singh Darshan Singh Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Sub Inspec- (Retd.)

13.09.12 Bathinda Babu Singh Conduc- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do-

01.07.71 280000 From due date payment

08.08.69 -do- 280000

13.09.12 Bathinda

14.06.12 Bathinda

13.07.12 Bathinda

13.09.12 Bathinda

24.10.13 Bathinda Mohan Singh Harbinder Singh Swaran Singh Kanwaljit Singh Kashmir Singh Kuldeep Chand Harchet Singh Sukhdev Singh Nirmal Singh Nirbhai Singh Mukhtiar Singh Swaran Singh Harbans Singh Bikkar Singh Gurbax Singh Teja Singh Mangat Singh Vijay Kumar (Retd.) Conduc- (Retd.) Inspec- Conduc- (Retd.) Conduc- Conduc- (Retd.) Sub Inspec- Driver Driver -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- Driver -do- Driver General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga -do- Conduc- Conduc- Sub Inspecto r Driver Driver -do- Driver -do- 1972 -do- 280000

21.09.77 -do- 280000 April, 1975 280000 From due date payment

15.07.76 -do- 280000

03.11.80 -do- 280000

01.05.78 March, 1982 July, 1996 31.12.83 250000 250000 250000 280000 From due date payment -do- -do- From due date payment

10.02.76 -do- 280000

25.12.78 -do- 280000

01.01.79 -do- 280000

25.11.77 -do- 280000

16.04.82 -do- 280000

28.01.68 270000 From due date payment

17.02.70 -do- 270000 April, 1975 20.03.76 -do- -do- 270000 270000 Conduc- Conduc- -do-

20.03.76 -do- 270000 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga

20.12.77 Not available From date of appoint onwards Black- Welder Surjan Singh Kashmir Singh Amar Singh Driver 526 of 2003 526 of 2003 176 of 2004 176 of 2004 176 of 2004 176 of 2004 122 of 2004 122 of 2004 122 of 2004 122 of 2004 182 of 2004 182 of 2004 182 of 2004 177 of 2004 177 of 2004 177 of 2004 177 of 2004 177 of 2004 177 of 2004 179 of 2004 179 of 2004 179 of 2004 179 of 2004 179 of 2004 115 of 2012 240 16033 2013 241 16034 2013 242 16944 2013 243 16945 2013 244 16946 2013 245 12302 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 246 02883 2014 118 of 2012

24.10.13 Bathinda Harbhajan Singh Conduc- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga 247 22328 2011 153 of 2003

02.08.11 Jalandhar Pritam Bhagat Amritpal Singh

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Ram Lal

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Pritam Singh Chanan Singh Amritpal Singh Sucha Singh Tirlok Kumar Bachhittar Singh Paramjit Singh Surinder Kumar Joginder Pal Bhag Singh Harcharan Singh Joginder Singh Ramesh Kumar Ranjit Singh Rajinder Singh Harpal Singh Mohinder Singh Harpal Singh Balwinder Singh Parminder Singh Sadhu Singh Bakhshish Singh Tarsem Lal Junior Techni- cian, Electri- Junior Techni- Carpen- TG-2 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar -do- -do- -do- Helper -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- TG-3 Electri- TG-3 TG-3 Welder -do- TG-3 Junior Techni- Junior Techni- TG-2 Junior Techni- Driver Conduc- Driver TG-2 Mecha- Junior Techni- TG-3 Carpen- TG-3 TG-3 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 329 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) Not available Not available Not available 50980 Service Parti- culars, if 06.08.73 . Promot- ed as Sub Inspec- tor in January, 2006, & Inspec- tor in August, 2008. Retired 30.09.10 Not available -do- -do- 33378 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 60192 -do- 60192 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 31374 65844 58368 58368 60192 58368 62016 52896 49980 -do- -do- 49980 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 62016 49980 58368 54720 58368 60192 63840 44332 58368 69858 48516 58368 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Manmohan Singh Shiv Kumar Helper

02.08.11 Jalandhar Didar Singh T/Mate -do- Jaswant Singh Harbhajan Singh Mangal Singh Mangat Ram Nar Singh Bhajan Singh Jarnail Singh Bir Bahadur Bhajan Chand Randhir Singh Joginder Singh

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Kartar Chand Ashok Kumar

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Satnam Singh Amarjit Singh Kaushal Kumar Harmesh Chand Gurmeet Singh Roop Lal Gurdev Singh Dalbir Singh Balwinder Singh Ajit Ram

02.08.11 Jalandhar Paramjit

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Amrik Singh Prem Pal Jaswinder Lal Pushpinder Singh Rakesh Chander Sukhdeep Singh Brij Mohan Mecha- TG-3 -do- -do- Helper -do- Tyreman -do- Helper -do- Black- TG-3 TG-3 TG-2 Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Washing Boy TG-3 Junior Techni- T/Mate Upholste r TG-3 TG-3 Painter TG-2 TG-3 TG-3 TG-3 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Driver -do- Carpen- TG-2 Black- Black- Black- Driver Black- Black- Carpen- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Dharam Pal Avtar Singh Driver 330 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 60192 58368 35568 54720 42864 56544 58368 58368 58368 31374 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 49980 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 31374 37758 45600 58368 48516 56544 49980 60192 47058 49980 58368 60192 58368 63840 58368 49980 60192 53076 58368 56544 58368 41495 58368 58368 49980 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

02.08.11 Jalandhar Lekh Raj

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Pritam Chand Charan Singh Avtar Singh TG-3, Turner TG-1 TG-2 TG-3 -do- -do- -do- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar Iqbal Singh Driver -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar T/Man Bhajan Dass Bhagat Ramji Dass Washing Boy Helper Painter B/S TG- 3 Driver Pushpinder Kumar Ajit Kumar Sodhi Singh Bhajan Lal -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar Maru Ram

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Harbhajan Lal Nirmal Singh Harmesh Singh Gurdas Ram Kewal Singh Mohinder Ram Bahadur Singh Atma Ram Driver -do- Safal Sewak TG-3 TG-2 TG-3 -do- -do- -do- -do- Painter -do- Driver -do- T/M Electri- TG-3 -do- -do- -do- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar Madan Lal T/M

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Kuldip Singh Kewal Krishan Paramjit Singh Sham Lal Driver -do- Driver -do- Carpen- Helper -do- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar Hari Chand Conduc- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar Jagir Singh

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Shangara Singh Hardev Singh Sodhi Ram TG-2, Electri- TG-2, Electri- Electri- TG-3

02.08.11 Jalandhar Ajit Singh TG-3

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Ashwani Kumar Jagdev Singh Charanjit Singh Sohan Singh Gurdeep Singh TG-3 Black- Conduc- Driver Conduc- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 331 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 54720 62016 62016 62016 41496 56544 35568 31374 58368 38850 52896 41496 56544 58368 56544 60192 40128 65844 33848 52996 58368 40128 56544 49980 32376 41490 60190 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 58368 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 58368 44232 56544 58368 56544 54720 63840 60192 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Shingara Singh Sham Lal Driver -do- Driver -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Driver Driver Driver Jagjeet Singh Gurdev Singh Paramjit Singh Balwinder Singh Major Singh Joginder Ram Shiv Kumar Conduc- Driver Driver Driver Driver Hukam Singh Joginder Singh Prem Singh Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Jamna Dass Avtar Singh Driver Driver Driver Sukhmand er Singh Ravinder Singh Pavittar Singh Narinder Singh Piayara Lal Driver Driver Driver -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Jarnail Singh Mahinder Singh Onkar Singh Joginder Singh Piyare Lal Driver -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- Conduc- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar Didar Singh Conduc- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Jaswant Singh Tarsem Singh Harbans Singh Kishan Singh Harjinder Singh Baldev Singh Tarsem Singh Balbir Singh Tarvinder Singh Narinder Singh Mohinder Singh Surinder Singh Mohinder Singh Driver -do- Driver -do- Conduc- Driver -do- -do- Driver -do- Conduc- Driver -do- -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- Driver -do- 332 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 49980 58368 54544 60192 52890 52890 51436 58368 60192 56544 56544 52896 29364 58368 65844 38850 52890 62016 62016 51438 49980 52890 56544 58368 29364 41496 58368 47058 60192 60192 54720 60192 65844 60192 52890 62016 58368 65844 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

02.08.11 Jalandhar Gian Singh Driver -do- Driver -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Shingara Singh Mahinder Singh Ajit Singh Harpal Singh Manohar Lal Dev Raj Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Gulbarg Singh Chuhar Singh Gurdip Singh Kashmir Singh Naresh Kumar Kalyan Singh Jaga Singh Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Bhupinder Singh Jaspal Singh Malkit Ram Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Gurnam Singh Jeevan Dass Surjit Singh Conduc- Gian Chand Zail Singh Kewal Singh Jaswant Singh Kulwant Singh Manjit Singh Narinder Pal Singh Sohan Singh Sham Lal

02.08.11 Jalandhar Balkishan

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Hrbhajan Singh Des Raj

02.08.11 Jalandhar

02.08.11 Jalandhar Mool Chand Kapoora Ram Balbir Singh Dharam Pal Sohan Singh Conduc- Conduc- Driver Conduc- Driver Tyreman -do- TG-3 -do- Mtg-3 -do- Upholste r Electri- TG-3 Junior Techni- Driver Conduc- Helper -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Painter -do- Conduc- -do- 333 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 58368 58368 63840 58368 56544 53076 35568 53076 29364 30372 54720 54720 51438 49980 52890 48516 38850 30372 42432 52893 37850 52890 39850 41490 51440 58370 60190 62020 65850 47060 58370 49980 58368 52890 24810 54720 56540 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

02.08.11 Jalandhar

12.07.12 Bathinda Kuldip Singh Chanan Singh Bachan Dass Harjinder Singh Narinder Singh Ram Darshan

12.07.12 Bathinda Jaspal Singh T/M TG-3 -do- -do- Driver -do- TG-3 TG-3 Junior Techni- Helper

12.07.12 Bathinda Hardev Singh TG-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Parminder Singh Helper

12.07.12 Bathinda

12.07.12 Bathinda Uttam Singh Prem Sager TG-3 Helper

12.07.12 Bathinda Nempal Singh TG-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Balvir Singh T.G.-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Harpreet Singh Junior Techni-

12.07.12 Bathinda Harbans Lal TG-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Gursewak Singh

12.07.12 Bathinda Chiman Lal

12.07.12 Bathinda Balvir Singh Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

24.08.92

18.06.90

01.08.70

01.10.88

12.11.75

01.10.87

01.02.86

09.02.86

19.08.92

01.01.79

01.02.86

16.04.83

25.05.84 334 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 51426 58370 62020 58368 54720 155472 100728 160440 109617 163035 106506 152781 151050 95790 155923 133050 132432 133050 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.01.99 30.09.08

01.01.99 30.09.08 -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 153 of 2003 205 of 08 223 of 08 207 of 08 228 of 08 196 of 08 205 of 08 206 of 08 221 of 08 217 of 08 213 of 08 233 of 08 197 of 08 218 of 08 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 21839 2013 22208 2013 25129 2013 25134 2013 25135 2013 25136 2013 25137 2013 25138 2013 25548 2013 26968 2013 26978 2013 26987 2013 26993 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 26995 2013 01941 2014 01955 2014 01962 2014 01971 2014 01976 2014 08041 2014 08043 2014 08044 2014 08045 2014 08046 2014 08047 2014 08048 2014 08053 2014 09218 2015 201 of 08 222 of 08 226 of 08 235 of 08 224 of 08 220 of 08 242 of 08 225 of 08 219 of 08 231 of 08 204 of 08 194 of 08 230 of 08 208 of 08 229 of 08

12.07.12 Bathinda Harjit Singh T.G.-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Mukand Singh TG-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Ravinder Singh TG-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Malkiat Singh TG-3

12.07.12 Bathinda Jagtar Singh Junior Techni-

12.07.12 Bathinda Gurwinderji t Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Bakhtawar Singh Conduc-

12.07.12 Bathinda Sukhdev Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Kuldeep Singh Conduc-

12.07.12 Bathinda Sukhmand er Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Narinder Singh Conduc-

12.07.12 Bathinda Sukhwinder Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Jaswinder Singh Driver

12.01.12 Bathinda Gurshinder pal Singh Conduc- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib Service Parti- culars, if 19.08.77

01.02.86

07.03.75

19.08.77

01.10.87

01.02.86

27.03.99

10.06.77

06.04.99

11.03.81

10.08.88

22.07.82 335 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 165558 152781 155703 158223 120470 132432 155278 146091 109029 106023 135828 141558 Period of Claim

01.01.99 30.09.08

01.01.99 30.09.08 Not available

01.01.99 30.09.08 108642

04.04.99

09.04.81 106326 122880

01.01.99 30.09.08

01.01.99 30.09.08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 09219 2015 09220 2015 09221 2015 09222 2015 09223 2015 09224 2015 11389 2013 11603 2013 198 of 08 203 of 08 232 of 08 232 of 08 199 of 08 202 of 08 165 of 2009 234 of 08

12.07.12 Bathinda Puran Singh Driver

12.01.12 Bathinda Puran Singh Conduc-

12.07.12 Bathinda Sukhdev Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Tarlochan Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Surinder Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Jagtar Singh Driver

12.07.12 Bathinda Charanjit Singh Ex- Conduc-

12.07.12 Bathinda Parkash Chand Chowki- 07939 2014 39 of 2004

21.02.13 Chandigarh Gian Chand Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- Junior Techni- R/R

21.02.13 Chandigarh Bakshish Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Rakesh Kumar

21.02.13 Chandigarh Tarlok Chand

21.02.13 Chandigarh Rachpal Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Rakesh Mohan

21.02.13 Chandigarh Sham Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Kuldip Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Arun Parkash

21.02.13 Chandigarh Manohar Lal

21.02.13 Chandigarh Balwant TG-3 Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Prem Chand 21.02.13 Chandigarh Raj Pal Carpen- Carpen- 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if Retired 30.06.02

13.02.7. Retired 30.09.06

13.10.83

13.11.81

02.10.83 336 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 142908 110836 151524 151524 155697 148557 Period of Claim

01.01.99 30.09.08

01.01.99 30.09.08 Retired 13.09.02

01.01.99 13.09.02 70000

16.02.91 92424

01.01.99 30.09.08 Not available Not available Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Sri Muktsar Sahib General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

21.02.13 Chandigarh Gurpal Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Vishwamite Carpen- TG-3 r

21.02.13 Chandigarh Surinder TG-3 Kumar

21.02.13 Chandigarh Ranjit Pal TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Gurcharan Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Gurdev Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Modan Singh TG-3 Mecha- TG-3 TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Bachan TG-3 Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Nasib Chand

21.02.13 Chandigarh Kuldeep Chand Washing Boy Tyreman -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Ram Sweeper -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Balwinder Kumar

21.02.13 Chandigarh Singh Jai Bhagwan

21.02.13 Chandigarh Prem Chand Carpen- Store Boy Welder -do- -do- -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Darshan Helper -do- Kumar

21.02.13 Chandigarh Rameshwa r Dass 21.02.13 Chandigarh Balbir Singh wd/o Som Nath 21.02.13 Chandigarh Hari Ram wd/o Amar Singh Electri- Junior Techni- TG-3 -do- -do- -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Ajaib Singh Welder -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Hari Ram

21.02.13 Chandigarh Ajaib Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Manga Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Varinder Kumar Black- TG-3 Junior Techni- TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Balwinder TG-3 Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Krishan Chand Jagjit Singh Electri-

21.02.13 Chandigarh A/F

21.02.13 Chandigarh Satish Kumar 21.02.13 Chandigarh Kuldip Singh Electri- TG-2

21.02.13 Chandigarh Bhupinder TG-3 Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Kishori Lal TG-2

21.02.13 Chandigarh Tarsen Lal TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Hardam TG-3 Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Harpal Singh TG-3 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Narinder TG-3, -do- Kumar

21.02.13 Chandigarh Paramjit TG-3 Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Surjit Singh TG-3 -do- -do- 337 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

21.02.13 Chandigarh Gian Chand 21.02.13 Chandigarh Gurdev Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Hayat Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Sewa Singh Tilak Raj

21.02.13 Chandigarh TG-2 TG-2 TG-3 HM TG-2

21.02.13 Chandigarh Iqbal Singh TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Kuldeep Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Gulshan Kumar 21.02.13 Chandigarh Anoop Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Balbir Singh Tarlochan Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Sardool Singh Junior Techni- Black- TG-3 TG-3 S/ Atten- TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Shiv Sham TG-3 Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Satish Kumar TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Madan Lal TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Rajinder TG-3 Kumar

21.02.13 Chandigarh Prem Singh TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Gurmeet TG-3 Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Hukam Chand 21.02.13 Chandigarh Pritam Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Gian Chand

21.02.13 Chandigarh Om

21.02.13 Chandigarh Parkash Labh Singh TG-3 TG-3 TG-3 TG-3 TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Surjit Singh TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Balbir Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Manjit Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Gurmit Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Harmit Singh Lachman Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh TG-2 TG-3 TG-3 TG-3 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Helper -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Sukhdev Sweeper -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Yashpal TG-3 Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Surinder Pal Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Surinmder Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Mohinder Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Sucha Singh TG-3 Carpen- Black- TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Piara Singh TG-3

21.02.13 Chandigarh Parbhat Chand Security Guard -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 338 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

21.02.13 Chandigarh Satpal Sweeper -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Madan Lal

21.02.13 Chandigarh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Jaspal Singh Tarlok Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Dalbir Singh Security Guard Security Guard Security Guard Sweeper -do- -do- -do- -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Raj Singh Sweeper -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Shamsher Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Harchand Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Kaka Ram

21.02.13 Chandigarh Rajinder Kumar

21.02.13 Chandigarh Suraj Bhan Security Guard Junior Techni- Carpen- Electri- Helper

21.02.13 Chandigarh Mahabir

21.02.13 Chandigarh Ravinder

21.02.13 Chandigarh Bira Singh Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Karam Singh Batter Atten- Carpen- Carpen- TG-3 Mecha- (Retd.) Junior Techni- Black- 21.02.13 Chandigarh Devi Chand Electri-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Balbir Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Mohinder Kumar Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Jasvir Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Kuldip Singh Jaspal Singh

21.02.13 Chandigarh

21.02.13 Chandigarh Harmesh Singh 21.02.13 Chandigarh Satpal Singh Junior Techni- Welder Carpen- Helper Helper -do-

21.02.13 Chandigarh Baijnath Helper -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 339 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available Not available Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Shinderp al Singh (decea- sed) was Conduc- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar

08.12.81 124000

01.01.99 31.07.11

22.10.13 Bathinda

22.10.13 Bathinda Jit Kaur wd/o Shinderpal Singh Gurpreet Kaur d/o Shinderpal Singh Lovepreet Kaur d/o Shinderpal Singh Amarit Kaur minor d/o Shinderpal Singh 285 07946 2014 286 05640 2016 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 39 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 200 of 2004 114 of 2011 114 of 2011 114 of 2011 114 of 2011 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 07639 2016 202 of 2009 07640 2016 68 of 08 07642 2016 07643 2016 07644 2016 05641 2016 209 of 08 200 of 08 216 of 08 210 of 08

12.08.13 Bathinda Harpal Singh TG-3

12.08.13 Bathinda Bikkar Singh Mecha-

12.08.13 Bathinda Gursewak Singh Black Smith

12.08.13 Bathinda Paramjit Singh Helper

12.08.13 Bathinda Geja Singh Conduc-

06.09.13 Bathinda Kanwaljit Singh Driver 05642 2016 204 of 2009

12.08.13 Bathinda Jasbir Kaur wd/o Mehar Singh, LR Mehar Singh was Ex. Driver 204 of 2009 227 of 08 113 of 2011 178 of 2010 212 of 08 215 of 08 166 of 2009 05647 2016 05648 2016 05650 2016 05651 2016 05652 2016 08112 2016

12.08.13 Bathinda

12.08.13 Bathinda Gurwinder Singh s/o Mehar Singh, LR Surjit Mahinder Singh Driver

24.01.14 Bathinda Gurbachan Singh Driver

12.08.13 Bathinda Baltej Singh Driver

12.08.13 Bathinda Gurmeet Singh Conduc-

12.08.13 Bathinda

12.08.13 Bathinda Salwant Singh Sajjan Singh 10490 2018 22 of 2014

18.04.17 Gurdaspur Shakti Parshad Ex- Conduc- Inspec- (Retd.) Assis- Cashier General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot Depot 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if Not available

13.07.70

01.08.87

01.02.86

01.08.91

27.03.91

28.02.02 340 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 140000 90000 133050 122313 95790 111007 46973 Period of Claim

01.01.99 30.04.09

01.01.99 30.09.05

01.01.99 30.09.08

27.03.99 30.09.08

01.01.99 28.02.02

07.10.83 148857

01.01.99 30.12.05 1977 (now retired)

01.01.99 30.12.05 65000

07.10.83

01.08.91 142000 95790

01.01.99 31.05.10

01.01.99 30.09.08 Not available

01.01.99 30.09.08 113805 Retired 31.12.02

01.01.99 31.12.02 70000 Not available

01.01.03 26.10.13 641978 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 301 17819 2010 01 of 2005

16.02.10 Patiala Chanan Singh Conduc- 302 21702 2012 94 of 2003

14.09.11 Jalandhar Kulwant Singh TG-I General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nangal Depot, Nangal General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot No. 1, Jalandhar -do- -do- -do- 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Gurdial Singh Vidya Sagar Chaman Lal Kultar Singh Jaswant Ram Nardeep Kumar TG-3 Store Atten- TG-3 Helper -do- TG-3 -do- TG-2 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Raj Kumar TG-2 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Shital Singh Black- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Kimti Lal Helper -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohan Lal TG-2 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Hussan Lal TG-3 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohinder Kumar Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Budh Singh Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Sarv Priya

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Gurdev Singh Hukam Chand Jasbir Singh Yard Master SSI (Retd.) Tyreman (Retd.) Driver -do- -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Kuldip Rai Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Kanti Mohan Raj Kumar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Som Raj TG-I (Retd.) Assis- Tyreman (Retd.) Conduc- -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Gurbachan Singh Driver -do- Service Parti- culars, if Retired 30.09.06 Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 341 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 43680 (Labour Court held him entitled to Rs.41,38 2/-) 50960 48660 47860 45360 42960 49850 50100 43300 44550 44500 47680 47850 39560 43850 44400 44550 47500 47550 47850 46800 46995 46850 46750 Period of Claim 3 years & 2 months precedin g 17.12.02

01.11.99 31.02.03

01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 to 2002

01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 to 2002

01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 94 of 2003 303 304 04062 2013 205 of 2009 04069 2013 209 of 2009

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Dalbir Singh Vijay Kumar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Bir Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Dewan Chand Ram Kishan Driver -do- T-3 -do- Conduc- -do- T-3 -do- Security Guard

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Harbans Lal SSI (Retd.) Harjinder Pal Buffer-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ramesh Chander Onkar Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Tilak Raj TG-2 (Retd.) Boiler Atten- Electri-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

23.08.12 Bathinda Malkiat Singh Santokh Singh Jaswant Singh Driver -do- TG-2 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

23.08.12 Bathinda Surjit Singh Conduc- 305 306 04075 2013 206 of 2009 04076 2013 207 of 2009

23.08.12 Bathinda

23.08.12 Bathinda Balbir Chand Tirlok Singh General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur Conduc- tor, Retd. on 30.06.06 tor on 20.03.70 . Promot- ed as Sub Inspec- tor later Conduc- Conduc- tor (later promot- ed as Inspec- tor). Retired 29.02.08 Conduc- 342 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 46850 46520 44450 44960 43980 46850 48950 47890 42560 47250 47200 48650 115700 92000 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.11.99 31.02.03 01.01.99 30.06.06

01.01.99 30.09.05 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available

20.03.70 . Retired 20.05.05

28.10.67 . Retired 30.09.05

13.09.71 140000 160000

01.01.99 30.09.05

01.01.99 29.02.08 307 308 04086 2013 04087 2013 210 of 2009 208 of 2009 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

23.08.12 Bathinda Resham Singh

23.08.12 Bathinda Inder Singh Conduc- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur

20.08.69 . Retired 31.01.07

22.01.17 0. Retired 31.08.07 130224 162000

01.01.99 31.01.07

01.01.99 31.08.07 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 309 13204 2014 87 of 2012

22.11.13 Bathinda Duni Chand @ Dulli Chand 310 311 312 13215 2014 179 of 2011 13222 2014 86 of 2012 11804 2015 605 of 2012

24.10.13 Bathinda Hans Raj

22.11.13 Bathinda Bhagwean Dass Conduc-

11.09.14 Bathinda Janak Raj 313 11986 2015 69 of 2012

12.09.14 Bathinda Harbhajan Lal 314 14031 2015 604 of 2012

12.09.14 Bathinda Bhagwan Chand 315 13210 2014 85 of 2012

22.11.13 Bathinda Sham Lal 316 21510 2013 95 of 2003

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ishac Mal 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Surinder Kumar Paramjit Singh Som Nath

14.09.11 Jalandhar Sat Pal

14.09.11 Jalandhar Shiv Kumar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Baldev

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Fakir Chand Jarnail Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Gurnam PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 343 Service Parti- culars, if Retired 30.04.08 Period of Claim

01.01.99 30.04.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 205000 150000

02.06.77 . Retired 30.04.07

01.01.99 30.04.07 Retired 30.09.06

01.01.99 30.09.06 125325

11.02.77 . Retired 31.08.11

23.07.80 267600

01.01.99 31.08.11 165000

01.01.99 31.01.12 267600

22.09.77 . Retired 31.08.12

01.01.99 31.08.12 Promote d as Inspecto r. Retired 31.03.08 Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 205000 48289 50967 50967 37698 50081 50967 50081 45982 45982 49719

01.01.19 99 to 31.03.20 08

01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar-2 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Conduc- tor. Promot- ed as Inspec- Conduc- Conduc- tor. Promot- ed as Inspec- Conduc- tor. Promot- ed as Sub Inspec- Conduc- tor and promot- ed as Inspec- Conduc- TG-3, Mecha- TG-3, Welder Carpen- Junior Techni- (Retd.) TG-3, Welder (Retd.) TG-3, Welder Carpen- TG-2, Mecha- (Retd.) TG-1, Mecha- Mecha- (Retd.) CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 344 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 47967 47967 40583 35877 53259 32821 45289 55289 47967 47967 50081 51618 47967 38132 47967 50081 30929 36997 47967 40583 47967 45982 33676 47967 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 to 2002

01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 to 2002 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 to 2002

01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Surinder Singh Joginder Singh Rashpal Singh Rakesh Chander

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Barkat Chand Mangu Ram Tarsem Lal

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Kewal Krishan Mukesh Kumar Rakesh Kumar Joginder Pal Jagdish Chander Gurnam Dass

14.09.11 Jalandhar Parminder Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Baldev Raj

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Sukhdev Singh Rakesh Kumar Subhash Chander Sukhdev Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Samuel

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Narinder Singh Peter Masih TG-2, Mecha- A/ Black- Junior Techni- Helper/ Junior Techni- Carpen- (Retd.) Sweeper TG-2, Mecha- (Retd.) TG-2, Mecha- (Retd.) Black- Electri- TG-3, Mecha- (Retd.) TG-3, Welder TG-3, Welder TG-3, Mecha- TG-3 TG-2, Tyreman (Retd.) Junior Techni- Junior Techni- TG-3, Electri- (Retd.) Junior Techni- (Retd.) TG-2, Mecha- Mecha- (Retd.)

14.09.11 Jalandhar Baljit Singh Washing -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Santokh Singh Boy (Retd.) TG-2, Mecha- (Retd.) -do- 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Simarjit Singh Om Parkash Joginder Pal TG-3, Mecha- Junior Techni- TG-2, Electri- (Retd.) Radiator Repairer (Retd.) TG-3, Mecha- (Retd.) Sucha Ram A/T/M Amarjit Singh Vinod Kumar Kamal Kishore Prabhu Ram Boota Singh TG-3, Mecha- (Retd.) Carpen- Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Amar Singh Carpen- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ajit Singh Santokh Singh Ramesh Chander Jaswinder Pal (Retd.) Uphols- (Retd.) TG-1, Electri- TG-1, Black- (Retd.) TG-3, Mecha- (Retd.) Prem Singh TG-2, Mecha- (Retd.) TG-3, Electri- A/ Electri- Carpen- Jatinder Kumar Rakesh Kumar Jail Singh Harbhajan Singh Jasbir Singh Junior Techni- Black- Surinder Singh Carpen- Murli Manohar Black- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Baljit Singh Driver -do- 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 345 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 41833 40583 47967 47967 45289 47967 45982 47967 49081 47967 45982 51618 45289 47967 50081 44386 44386 47967 35877 40377 47967 47967 45982 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Joginder Pal Singh Electri- (Retd.) Hitler Singh Welder

14.09.11 Jalandhar Harjit Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Dayal Singh TG-3, Mecha- Electri-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Des Raj Avtar Singh TG-3, Mecha- (Retd.) Junior Techni- TG-3, Mecha- (Retd.) Baldev Ran Black- Satnam Singh Surinder Singh Shakti Chand Harish Kumar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Sohan Lal

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ram Asra

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Rajinder Singh Jagdish Singh Maghar Ram Gurmail Singh Prem Kumar Santokh Singh Sukhdev Singh Davinder Pal Singh Raman Kumar Krishan Kumar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Electri- (Retd.) TG-I Junior Techni- Helper TG-2, Mecha- (Retd.) TG-3, Mecha- (Retd.) TG-3 Black- (Retd.) Electri- TG-2 (Retd.) Junior Techni- Fitter Turner -do- Helper -do- Conduc- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Raj Kumar TG-I -do- 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 346 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 47967 47967 40586 51618 47967 41583 53081 53081 54618 56259 32096 37792 50967 47387 50967 52719 44833 48982 43583 48952 53081 41132 36676 48982 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Swaran Singh James Masih Gurjinder Singh Parminder Kaur wd/o Bikramjit Singh Satnam Singh Salwinder Kumar Fitter (Retd.) TG-2 (Retd.) Carpen- (Retd.) T/Smith Junior Techni- Conduc-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Surinder Kumar Store Boy

14.09.11 Jalandhar Pirthi Chand Conduc- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Harbhajan Singh Sarwan Kumar Surinder Kumar Driver -do- Carpen- -do- Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Gurbachan Singh Security Guard

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Jagdish Singh Puran Chand

14.09.11 Jalandhar Brij Lal Washing Boy Mecha- Washing Boy -do- -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Chaman Lal TG-3 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Surjit Singh Sweeper -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Pritam Singh Kewal Singh Sulakhan Singh Amarjit Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ravi Kant

14.09.11 Jalandhar Harmesh Lal

14.09.11 Jalandhar Hira Lal TG-2 -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur -do- -do- Electri- Helper/ Electri- Junior Techni- Electri- (Retd.) Turner TG-2, Mecha- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 347 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 58134 48982 54618 48289 37792 44833 32096 44833 37792 52719 59489 41132 38877 54618 36676 46118 32096 53081 48982 39976 39997 51000 50000 50000 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003

14.09.11 Jalandhar Vinod Kumar Electri- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohan Lal A/B/A -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohinder Singh Dalwinder Singh Weldar -do- -do- TG-2, Mecha-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Dev Kishan Mecha- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Malkiat Singh Kewal Krishan Fakir Chand Surinder Pal (Retd.) Helper -do- A/Turner -do- TG-2, Mecha- Fitter -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Som Lal Tyreman -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohan Lal Sweeper -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Gurcharan Singh Cleaner -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Tarsem Singh Avinash Kumar Santosh Kumar Jaswant Singh Kamlesh Kumar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Sohan Lal Tyreman -do- Junior Techni- Mecha- (Retd.) Electri- Electri- Carpen- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Krishan Dev Borer -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Amrit Lal Welder -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Madan Gopal Jagdish Singh Ashwani Kumar Junior Techni- Junior Techni- (Retd.) Helper -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Jit Singh TG-3 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Balbir Singh Helper -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 348 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 50000 45000 47000 50100 46000 30000 47000 50000 51000 56000 38000 32000 50000 40000 51000 51000 55000 47000 55000 55000 37000 41000 25000 35000 35000 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 --

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 --

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Bhag Singh Machinis t (Retd.) Black- Gurmit Singh -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Kishori Lal Helper -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohinder Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Harbilas

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohan Lal

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ayub

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Parshotam Dass Onkar Singh Harminder Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Satish Kumar TG-2, Mecha- (Retd.) Helper TG-I, Mecha- TG-3 (Expired ) Mecha- (Retd.) Electri- (Retd.) Store Atten- (Retd.) Electri- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Dhian Dass U/ -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Kishan Singh Gurmittar Singh Gobind Ram Swaran Singh Gurcharan Lal Ram Parkash Piara Lal

14.09.11 Jalandhar Mohan Lal

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Rajan Kumar Balbir Singh Ashok Kumar Holster U/ Holster Mecha- Mecha- Carpen- (Retd.) H/M Black- Mecha- Tyreman Carpen- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- TG-2 -do- TG-3

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Sucha Singh B/Assis- Mohinder Singh Electri-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Tilak Ram Conduc- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar-I -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 349 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 53000 53000 28000 53000 24000 55000 35000 50000 53000 39000 51000 47000 37000 40000 50000 45000 30000 46000 51000 50000 46000 50000 54254 54254 44689 44034 --

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 -- -- -- -- -- --

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003 95 of 2003

14.09.11 Jalandhar Das Raj

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Tarsem Singh Kuldip Chand Conduc- -do- Driver -do- TG-3 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Harjinder Singh Conduc- -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ajit Singh Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Samittar Singh Kirpal Singh Driver -do- Washing Boy -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Paramjit Singh Tyreman (Retd.) -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Sadhu Singh Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ravinder Kumar Washing Boy -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Partap Singh Nachhatar Singh A/B/S -do- Driver -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Chandan A/F -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ram Parkash Makhan Singh Fitter -do- TG-3 -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar Balkar Ram A/T/M -do-

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Surinder Singh Ram Kishan Balbir Singh Santokh Singh Mohan Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar Ram Lal

14.09.11 Jalandhar Diraj Singh

14.09.11 Jalandhar

14.09.11 Jalandhar Partap Singh Sushil Kumar Helper -do- Fitter -do- Driver (Retd.) -do- Driver -do- Fitter -do- Black- Black- Junior Techni- Welder -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 350 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 45520 53913 50625 41691 56820 50076 38086 52600 49600 34603 50662 52819 35168 52819 43297 45226 38490 51401 46426 50186 51966 51966 42450 43500 46800 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 01.11.99 31.01.03 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 317 12561 2013 384 of 2003

19.10.11 Amritsar Gurpal Singh Driver (Retd.) 351 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 57288 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim Specific period Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- 27949 50344 -do- -do- 55552 -do- -do- 55552 -do- -do- 40796 -do- -do- 43400 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available w.e.f. 01.01.99 onwards 64579 32810 49056 55552 52080 38192 30811 28960 49056 55552 29859 28960 33852 52080 40796 50344 50343 40796 68630 67572 52790 64149 144756 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Conduc- Techni- Grade-3 Techni- Grade-3 Techni- Grade-3 Store Atten- Store Atten- Inspec- Helper Conduc- Driver (Retd.) T.G.-3 Conduc- Helper/ Washing Boy Conduc- Driver T.G.-2 -do- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Junior Techni- C.T. Driver (Retd.) Conduc- Inspec- Inspec- Inspec- Inspec- T.G.-3 Mecha- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-1 -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Patti 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 384 of 2003 672 of 2005

19.10.11 Amritsar

12.10.11 Amritsar Gurcharan Singh Bakshish Singh Gurinder Singh Santokh Singh Parmjeet Singh Sakattar Singh Chanan Singh Sulakhan Singh Gurmej Singh Balkar Singh Ajit Singh Amrik Singh Joginder Singh Mukhtar Singh Ram Singh Kulwant Singh Swaran Singh Kashmir Singh Balbir Singh Yadwinder Singh Ajmer Singh Gurdeep Singh Kashmir Singh Sukhwinder Singh Amarjit Singh Navinder Singh Anil Kumar Harbrinder Singh Sukhdev Singh 318 12605 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

12.10.11 Amritsar

12.10.11 Amritsar Ranjit Singh Rajwant Singh Kashmir Singh Barinder Singh Amarjit Singh Malklat Singh

12.10.11 Amritsar Lekh Raj J.T. Mecha- Mecha- Washing Boy Security Guard Junior Techni- Painter

12.10.11 Amritsar

12.10.11 Amritsar Store Sukhchain Boy Singh Avtar Singh Up-

12.10.11 Amritsar

12.10.11 Amritsar holster Electri- Joginder Singh Manmohan Singh Amar Singh T.G.-III Mecha- T.G.-II Mecha- T.G.-III Mecha- Electri- Hardeep Singh Atma Singh Helper Guljar Singh Surinder Singh Bikram Singh Jaswant Singh Om Parkash Balwinder Singh Savinder Singh Gurcharan Singh Kashmir Singh Joginder Singh Washing Boy Junior Techni- Tyreman Painter -do- Washing Boy Mecha- Lohar -do- -do- -do- T.G.-III -do- -do- Sub Inspec-

12.10.11 Amritsar Hari Chand T.G.-II -do-

12.10.11 Amritsar

12.10.11 Amritsar Dalbir Singh Rajinder Kumar Balbir Singh Sucha Singh Manohar Lal Gardhari Lal Harpal Singh Jagtar Singh Hazara Singh Harbhajan Singh Mecha- T.G.-III Mecha- Mecha- Mecha- Mecha- Mecha- Mecha- Lohar Carpen- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 352 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 152749 114352 94206 109732 88282 147042 103277 123648 195306 134467 97225 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 64273 -do- -do- 133532 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 166364 70713 110581 92416 122018 123953 119815 170007 72338 119089 158364 10504 115719 111552 114731 113483 114249 120969 116173 94848 118174 138619 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

12.10.11 Amritsar

12.10.11 Amritsar Gurbax Singh Kabal Singh Gian Singh Lohar -do- Lohar -do- Lohar -do-

12.10.11 Amritsar Deva Nand Sweeper -do-

12.10.11 Amritsar

11.12.12 Patiala Pargat Singh Harbhajan Singh Hukam Singh Nirmal Singh Vinod Kumar Gurmeet Singh Charanjit Singh Veer Singh Baldev Singh Amrik Singh Gurnam Singh Nirvail Singh Manmohan Singh Balwinder Singh Jaswinder Singh Junior Techni- Borar -do- -do- A/U PP -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Washing Boy Safai Sewak A/E Washing Boy Lohar A/E Carpen- Turner Junior Techni- T.G.-III Washing Boy Assis- Cashier Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Period of Claim -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 353 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 127131 120953 127296 113659 103658 158364 124980 95204 69397 67915 108446 175408 151003 116891 128826 130028 102552 82613 133958

20.02.81

01.02.02 31.12.04 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nangal Township, District Ropar 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 672 of 2005 54 of 2005 319 17221 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 354 ANNEXURE: ‘G’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P.R.T.C.) [Total 09 cases, Sr. Nos. 320 to 328] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 320 10614 2013 344 of 2004

03.10.12 Bathinda Radhey Sham Conduc- 344 of 2004 344 of 2004 344 of 2004 344 of 2004 344 of 2004 344 of 2004 45 of 2006 321 10617 2013

03.10.12 Bathinda Pawan Kumar Conduc-

03.10.12 Bathinda Partap Singh Driver -do-

03.10.12 Bathinda Pala Singh

03.10.12 Bathinda Ajaib Singh

03.10.12 Bathinda

03.10.12 Bathinda Matwal Singh Mohinder Singh

23.10.12 Bathinda Balbir Singh Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Inspec- Retired 30.09.99 322 10672 2013 342 of 2004

03.10.12 Bathinda Pargat Singh Conduc- 342 of 2004 342 of 2004 342 of 2004 342 of 2004 342 of 2004 342 of 2004 340 of 2004 340 of 2004

03.10.12 Bathinda

03.10.12 Bathinda Gurcharan Singh Conduc- Tarsem Chand Conduc- Harmeshwar Dass Conduc-

03.10.12 Bathinda Gian Chand Conduc-

03.10.12 Bathinda Sukhwinder Singh Conduc-

03.10.12 Bathinda Prem Pal

19.09.12 Bathinda Satwinder Singh

19.09.12 Bathinda Nazar Singh Conduc- Conduc- Conducti 323 16114 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.08.01 31.07.04 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 40498 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available

01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 Not available 36705 55147 58594 27747 41788 53424 210000 Not available

01.08.01 31.07.04 45842 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available 44460 43083 53424 58594 47218 44460 20523

01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.04.00 31.03.03 -do- 47218

01.10.97 30.09.00 General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

19.09.12 Bathinda Pal Singh Driver -do- -do- -do-

19.09.12 Bathinda Surjit Singh

04.10.12 Bathinda Sukhwinder Singh Conduc- Conduc-

04.10.12 Bathinda Drashan Singh Driver General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do-

04.10.12 Bathinda Vijay Kumar

04.10.12 Bathinda Shamsher Singh Conduc- -do- Driver -do-

04.10.12 Bathinda Sajjan Singh Driver -do-

04.10.12 Bathinda Janta Singh

04.10.12 Bathinda

18.09.12 Bathinda Sardara Singh Baldev Singh Conduc- tor (now Inspec- tor) Conduc- Conduc-

18.09.12 Bathinda Ved Parkash Driver -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do-

18.09.12 Bathinda Karnail Singh Conduc- -do-

18.09.12 Bathinda Ram Singh Driver -do-

18.09.12 Bathinda Tarsem Chand Conduc-

18.09.12 Bathinda Khet Ram

18.09.12 Bathinda Joginder Singh

18.09.12 Bathinda Harjit Singh Chief Inspec- Sub Inspec- Driver

18.09.12 Bathinda Ram Parkash Mecha- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

18.09.12 Bathinda Gurcharan Singh Driver -do-

18.09.12 Bathinda

18.09.12 Bathinda Gurchet Singh Sukhdev Singh Gurdev Singh Fitter -do- Fitter -do- Inspec- -do-

18.09.12 Bathinda Megh Raj Driver -do-

18.09.12 Bathinda Amarjit Singh Inspec- -do- 355 Period of Claim

01.11.00 31.10.03 -

01.08.01 31.07.04

01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04

01.08.01 31.07.04 07.04.80 30.04.01

07.04.80 30.09.99 07.04.80 31.01.03 07.04.83 31.08.02 07.04.80 31.01.02 07.04.80 31.01.99 07.04.80 30.09.02 07.04.80 31.07.02 07.04.80 31.07.01 07.04.80 31.08.02 07.04.80 31.07.01 07.04.80 30.09.02 07.04.80 31.01.02 07.04.80 31.12.01 -- Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 48930 45143 37913 53424 43083 41788 43083 62214 44460 205000 180000 210000 185000 205000 195000 210000 205000 205000 210000 205000 210000 210000 205000 - Service Parti- culars, if -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 340 of 2004 340 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 424 of 2004 324 16116 2013 325 16117 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 326 16123 2013 339 of 2004

03.10.12 Bathinda Satpal Singh Driver General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do-

03.10.12 Bathinda Kewal Singh Conduc- Driver -do-

03.10.12 Bathinda

03.10.12 Bathinda Sham Sher Singh Mohinder Singh Niranjan Singh Conduc- Conduc-

03.10.12 Bathinda

03.10.12 Bathinda Gurdharan Singh Conduc- Sarabjit Singh Conduc-

25.09.12 Bathinda Mittu Singh Driver

25.09.12 Bathinda Satpal Singh Conduc-

25.09.12 Bathinda Sadhu Singh Driver -do-

25.09.12 Bathinda Jora Singh Driver -do-

25.09.12 Bathinda

25.09.12 Bathinda Kashmir Singh Maghar Singh Balwant Singh Driver -do- Driver -do- Driver -do-

25.09.12 Bathinda Gurcharan Singh Driver -do-

25.09.12 Bathinda

25.09.12 Bathinda Hardev Singh Jagmail Singh Darbara Singh Sukhdev Singh

25.09.12 Bathinda Gurcharan Singh Driver -do- Inspec- Inspec- Chief Inspec- Gunman -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

25.09.12 Bathinda Tarsem Singh Conduc-

25.09.12 Bathinda Bant Singh Driver -do-

25.09.12 Bathinda Harnek Singh Driver -do- 327 16273 2013 339 of 2004 339 of 2004 339 of 2004 339 of 2004 339 of 2004 339 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 356 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.08.01 31.07.04 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 48600 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 47218 51700 49977 56014 30147 27747 205000 225000 220000 204000 2150000 180000 235000 270000 210000 210000 190000 206000 190000 206000 150000 195000

01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 10.02.83 31.01.03

07.04.80 31.10.02 07.04.80 31.06.02 21.05.83 31.01.03 20.04.81 31.07.02 07.04.80 30.06.65 07.04.80 31.10.00 07.04.80 31.01.99 20.04.81 31.07.02 07.04.80 29.02.00 07.04.80 30.06.97 07.04.80 to 31.10.

07.04.80 30.09.90 07.04.80 31.07.02 16.11.88 31.08.02 07.04.80 31.10.99 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department Service Parti- culars, if -do-

25.09.12 Bathinda

25.09.12 Bathinda Hardial Singh Maghar Singh Driver -do- Black- -do- -do-

19.09.12 Bathinda Mohinder Singh Conduc-

19.09.12 Bathinda Malkiat Singh

19.09.12 Bathinda Ranjit Singh

19.09.12 Bathinda Gurnam Singh

19.09.12 Bathinda Sarup Singh

19.09.12 Bathinda

19.09.12 Bathinda Resham Singh Mohinder Singh Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- Conduc- General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Budhlada -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 357 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 196000 198000 53424 27747 27747 35675 39203 44460 49977 Period of Claim

07.04.80 31.03.97 07.04.80 23.02.99 01.08.01 31.07.04

01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 01.08.01 31.07.04 328 16274 2013 423 of 2004 423 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 343 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 358 ANNEXURE: ‘H’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT [(A) – Cases of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar] [02 cases – Sr. Nos. 320 to 330] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department Service Parti- culars, if Not available 329 04598 2015 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Sardari Lal (deceased) through LRs Ajit Singh Dalbir Singh Karnail Singh Mohinder Singh Inderjit Singh Kewal Krishan

09.12.14 Amritsar Dina Nath

09.12.14 Amritsar Shree Ram T.W.D. O&M Branch Beldar B&R Branch -do- Beldar O&M Branch -do- T.W.D. O&M Branch -do- Beldar O&M Branch -do- Beldar O&M Branch -do- Beldar O&M Branch -do- Mali-cum- Chowki- Beldar - -do- O&M Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Tulsi Dass Fitter O&M Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Harbhajan Singh Beldar B&R Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Gura Beldar B&R Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Tarsem Lal

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Bachan Singh Bishambar Dass Electri- B&R Branch -do- Beldar B&R Branch -do- Beldar B&R Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Nath Fitter O&M Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Baljinder Singh Beldar O&M Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Bhoop Beldar O&M Branch -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Rattan Chand Beldar O&M Branch -do- Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 117148 86056 56769 99244 56769 72742 75469 75118 56769 110510 56769 93890 65680 61235 60940 110038 56769 75972 83575 Period of Claim

01.01.90 30.09.02

01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.06.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department Service Parti- culars, if -do- 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Jagdish Chander Kulwant Singh Jarnail Singh Raminder Singh Major Singh Inderjit Singh Harbhajan Kaur L.R. & wd/o Inderjit Singh Sawinder Kaur L.R. & wd/o Chanan Kashmir Singh Tarsem Singh T.W.D. O&M Branch Beldar O&M Branch -do- Beldar O&M Branch -do- Beldar O&M Branch -do- Watchma n B&R Branch -do- Beldar O&M Branch -do- Beldar Water Supply -do- Fitter - -do- T.W.D. O&M Cell -do- Beldar O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Mansa Lal Beldar O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Kala (deceased) through LRs Subha Singh Baldev Singh Sewer- - -do- T.W.D. O&M Cell -do- Beldar O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Avtar Singh Beldar O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Amrik Singh Baldev Singh Swami Nath Darshan Lal Saroj Kumar T.W.D. O&M Cell -do- Fitter O&M Cell -do- T.W.D. O&M Cell -do- T.W.D. O&M Cell -do- Sewer- O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Deepa Beldar B&R Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Gurbachan Lal Ashok Kumar T.W.D. O&M Cell -do- T.W.D. O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Rattan Lal Chowki- O&M Cell -do- 359 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 117789 65780 56770 74505 56769 56769 50130 102970 116433 56769 56769 75469 117630 56769 56769 99825 135753 75943 75193 56769 48070 115690 78161 80687 Period of Claim

01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 25.08.01

01.01.90 02.05.02

01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02

01.01.90 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department Service Parti- culars, if -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Tarsem Singh Beldar O&M Cell

09.12.14 Amritsar Roshan Lal Beldar O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Harjinder Beldar O&M Cell -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Rehmat Beldar O&M Cell -do- 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

09.12.14 Amritsar Pooran Singh Watchma n Garden Section

09.12.14 Amritsar Sat Pal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Surinder Singh Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Adalat Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Muni Ram Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Gauri Shankar Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Milan Mali Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Mali -

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Shiv Parshad (deceased) through LRs Neemar Chhote Ram Ranjit Singh Mali Mali Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Rajesh Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Bachan Singh Jaswant Singh Mali Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Mauli Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Satnam Singh Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Avadh Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Adhaar Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Hari Ram Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Kewal Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Maheshwar Mali Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 360 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 56769 86047 56769 86056 45058 54226 54226 54226 77468 73468 67568 73468 54226 78372 54226 28464 54226 68823 48802 67568 45581 78372 54226 54226 54226 Period of Claim

01.11.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.92 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 31.12.98 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02

01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.98 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.95 30.09.02 01.01.91 30.09.02 01.01.95 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Karam Singh Ramesh Kumar Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Shree Nath Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Kashmir Singh Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Sita Ram Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Binder Lal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Bawa Singh Kishan Kumar Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Avtar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Vinod Kumar Ram Shankar Ram Kumar Beldar Mali Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Dewat Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Khushi Ram Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Soman Lal Mali

09.12.14 Amritsar Thakur Singh Chowki-

09.12.14 Amritsar Dhani Ram Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Jia Lal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Santokh Singh Beldar Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch

09.12.14 Amritsar Sawinder Singh Bola Beldar Horticulture Branch

09.12.14 Amritsar Tarsem Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Girdhari Lal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Satya Narain Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Prem Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Madan Lal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Madan Singh Beldar Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 361 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 73468 54226 54226 73468 54226 67568 78372 73468 78372 68823 78372 54226 54226 54226 - 78372 73468 45581 67568 54226 78372 73468 73468 78372 54226 78617 Period of Claim

01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.91 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 -

01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.95 30.0.02 01.01.91 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

09.12.14 Amritsar Main Singh Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Raja Ram Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Kedar Nath Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Safal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Nanku Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Sunder Rajinder Parshad Kashmir Singh Beldar Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Kaka Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Mohinder Pal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Mohan Lal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Narain Dass Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Mohan Lal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Satnam Singh Ram Kali wd/o Parahlad Raja Ram (deceased) through LRs Shivay Parshad Ranjit Singh Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Dev Narain Beldar Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Beldar -

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Lakhwinder Singh (deceased) through LRs Randhir Singh Gurmukh Singh

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Lakhveer (deceased) through LRs Mata Parshad Beldar - Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Beldar Horticulture Branch Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 362 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 73468 - 54226 80506 78512 73468 78372 54226 78617 54226 78617 54226 54226 54226 - 54226 80506 54226 78372 78617 54226 67568 - 73468 80034 Period of Claim

01.01.90 30.09.02 -

01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 -

01.01.93 30.09.02

01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02

01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.91 30.09.02 -

01.01.90 30.09.02

01.01.90 30.09.02 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 363 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 54226 - 54226 73468 78372 80506 54226 73468 54226 78372 73468 54226 54226 73468 54226 78372 78617 54226 48024 8738 54226 78372 78372 78617 73468 Period of Claim

01.01.93 30.09.02 -

01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02

01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.95 30.09.02 01.01.01 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch

09.12.14 Amritsar Pam Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Marik Singh Naresh Kumar Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Dalbira Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Amar Nath Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Ram Dulara Ram Bahadur Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Birju Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Jaswant Singh Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Kewal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Gurnam Singh Lakhveer Singh Kashmir Singh Jeeta (deceased) through LRs Baldev Singh Mukhtiar Singh Ram Samer Ram Rattan Karam Singh Manjit Kaur w/o Binda Singh Dari Shankar Mandal Ram Parkash Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Anokh Lal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Hans Raj Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Narinder Beldar 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Beldar - CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 330 24422 2017 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 182 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Turner -do-

09.12.14 Amritsar Inder Pal Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Kashmir Singh Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Pal Singh Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Gurvail Singh Deepa Chander Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar Brij Mohan Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

09.12.14 Amritsar Sham Sunder Jagir Singh Beldar Beldar

09.12.14 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Ram Simran Baljit Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Dhian Singh Mangal Singh Pritpal Singh Sukhbir Singh Beldar Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Balwinder Singh Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Hardip Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar Balkar

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Karamjit Singh Dilbagh Singh Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Jaswinder Singh Tubewell Operator Jatinder Kumar Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Manjit Singh Electri-

05.02.15 Amritsar Gurdeep Singh Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Kulwinder Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Tarsem Singh Tubewell Operator ParveenKu Tubewell Operator Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Horticulture Branch Municipal Corporation, Amritsar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 364 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 54226 54226 54226 73468 74527 54226 - 54226 - 80536 131466 103082 80536 80536 74840 80536 80536 80536 80536 74840 74840 55297 80536 74840 80536 80536 Period of Claim

01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.90 30.09.02 01.01.93 30.09.02 -

01.01.93 30.09.02 -

01.11.92 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 01.02.93 31.06.02 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department Welder -do-

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Sukhdev Singh Tubewell Operator Harjinder Singh Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Jatinder Kumar Mangat Ram

05.02.15 Amritsar Arjan Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Balwinder Singh Mulakh Raj Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Jang Bahadur Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Pargat Singh Darshan Kumar Kuldip Singh Jagtar Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar Janak Raj

05.02.15 Amritsar Ajit Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar Amir Chand Tubewell Operator Street Light Patroller Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Chaman Lal Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Buta Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar Kulwant Singh Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Surinder Pal Singh Tubewell Operator Jasbir Singh Tubewell Operator Bhupinder Singh Tubewell Operator Gopal Singh Ashok Kumar Sharma Baldev Singh Ranjit Singh Tubevell Driver Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Chanchal Singh Tubewell Operator -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 365 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 80536 80536 80536 80536 131466 25000 80536 80536 80536 103082 38048 131466 117477 90000 119946 126513 107055 123759 108148 98931 80536 108711 111765 109763 107976 61718 Period of Claim

01.11.92 31.06.02 01.11.92 31.06.02 01.11.92 31.06.02 01.11.92 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 -

01.11.92 31.06.02 01.11.92 31.06.02 01.11.92 31.06.02 -

01.11.92 01.01.98 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 -

01.01.90 31.08.01 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.92 31.06.98 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

05.02.15 Amritsar Amrit Lail

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Joginder Singh Jaspal Singh Wanjit Kaur w/o Ranjit Singh Suresh Chander Surinder Kumar Surinder Pal Singh Buta Ram Nirbhai Singh Tubewell Operator Vaccinato r Vaccinato r (M.P.H.W. ) Vaccinato r (M.P.H.W. ) Vaccinato r (M.P.H.W. ) Tubewell Operator Vaccinato r (MPHW) Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Gurbans Singh Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Chanchal Singh Tubewell Operator Amar Singh Tubewell Operator Dilbagh Singh Rajinder Singh Gurdev Singh Pritpal Singh Harish Kumar Satwant Singh Narinder Singh Driver -do- Fitter -do- Driver -do- Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator -do- -do- -do- Driver -do-

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Vijay Kumar Tubewell Operator Manmohan Singh Tubewell Operator

05.02.15 Amritsar Ramesh Kumar

05.02.15 Amritsar Madan Lal

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Balbir Singh Surjan Singh Subash Chander Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Electri- Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 366 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 80536 133276 122671 110941 136430 80536 81644 126710 43626 43626 43626 49383 92616 86131 95347 110559 111032 109503 91347 108711 126047 131466 110052 83215 80000 127311 Period of Claim

01.01.92 31.06.02 - - - -

01.01.90 31.06.02 Not available Not available 01.01.92 31.06.98 01.01.92 31.06.98 01.01.92 31.06.98 01.01.92 31.06.00 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.01 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 Not available 01.01.90 31.06.02 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003 144 of 2003

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Iqbal Chand Sarabjit Singh Gurpal Singh Raman Kumar

05.02.15 Amritsar Prem Lal

05.02.15 Amritsar

05.02.15 Amritsar Mahesh Kumar Narinder Kumar Vijay Kumar Surinder Singh

05.02.15 Amritsar Soba Ram

05.02.15 Amritsar Aurjan Dev

05.02.15 Amritsar Harjit Singh Engine Driver Tubewell Operator Tubewell Operator Street Light Patroller Street Light Patroller Street Light Patroller Street Light Patroller Street Light Patroller Street Light Patroller Street Light Patroller Street Light Patroller Tubewell Operator -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

05.02.15 Amritsar Prithbi Pal Singh Beldar -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 367 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 119694 113351 127311 21735 41436 34349 20905 31587 21444 21338 Not available 80536 56600 Period of Claim

01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 02.09.96 31.07.99 01.09.96 31.07.99 01.09.96 31.07.99 07.11.96 31.07.99 01.09.96 31.07.99 01.09.96 31.07.99 13.01.97 31.07.99 Not available

11.01.92 31.06.02 01.01.90 31.06.02 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 368 ANNEXURE: ‘I’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT [(B) – Cases of Municipal Corporation, Patiala] [51 cases – Sr. Nos. 331 to 381] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 03920 of 2015 445 of 08 04088 of 2015 450 of 08 18117 of 2016 434 of 08 04111 of 2015 475 of 08 04120 of 2015 457 of 08 04122 of 2015 437 of 08 04126 of 2015 454 of 08 04127 of 2015 458 of 08 04139 of 2015 444 of 08 04268 of 2015 446 of 08 04278 of 2015 449 of 08 04279 of 2015 473 of 08 04280 of 2015 439 of 08 04281 of 2015 442 of 08 04282 of 2015 441 of 08 04283 of 2015 451 of 08 04284 of 2015 443 of 08 04285 of 2015 419 of 08 04286 of 2015 474 of 08

31.03.14 Patiala

13.05.15 Patiala Ram Singar Dinesh Kumar Gurmail Singh Mali Mali Beldar

31.03.14 Patiala Ram Karan Mali

31.03.14 Patiala

31.03.14 Patiala Satish Kumar Gurmail Singh Ram Bahadur Baldev Singh Sukhdev Singh Khajan Singh Mali Mali Mali Mali Mali Mali

31.03.14 Patiala Mewa Ram Mali

31.03.14 Patiala

31.03.14 Patiala Nirmal Singh Gaya Parshad Balbir Singh Mali Mali Mali

31.03.14 Patiala Ram Avtar Mali

31.03.14 Patiala

31.03.14 Patiala Kesar Singh Chand Singh Mali Mali

31.03.14 Patiala Govardhan Mali

31.03.14 Patiala Shiv Ram Mali Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Service Parti- culars, if 21.07.79 Not available

01.05.01

21.06.79

02.02.84

13.06.77

15.09.04

19.06.07

21.06.79

11.04.85

14.10.77

14.06.77

14.08.95

14.10.77

09.04.01

21.06.79 Not available

14.10.77 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 233642 84915 84915 37490 219410 240165 41472 9306 233642 233642 219410 43930 240165 182051 240165 84915 233642 224000 36225 Period of Claim

01.08.02 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 17.03.06 31.05.08 01.11.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 15.09.04 31.05.08 19.06.07 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 28.02.07 17.03.06 31.05.08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 04287 of 2015 447 of 08 04288 of 2015 448 of 08 04378 of 2015 429 of 08 04385 of 2015 459 of 08 04386 of 2015 424 of 08 04389 of 2015 423 of 08 04390 of 2015 430 of 08 04409 of 2015 426 of 08 04430 of 2015 453 of 08 04431 of 2015 455 of 08 04523 of 2015 425 of 08 04524 of 2015 456 of 08 04525 of 2015 421 of 08 04526 of 2015 463 of 08 04527 of 2015 47 6of 08 04543 of 2015 464 of 08 04544 of 2015 433 of 08 04545 of 2015 465 of 08 04559 of 2015 470 of 08 04560 of 2015 432 of 08 04561 of 2015 431 of 08 04581 of 2015 427 of 08 04937 of 2015 436 of 08 04976 of 2015 435 of 08 04982 of 2015 460 of 08

31.03.14 Patiala Ram Gopal Mali

31.03.14 Patiala

31.03.14 Patiala Pancham Ram Bahadur Singh Manohar Dass Sikander Khan Sham Sunder Ram Sunder Amrik Singh

31.03.14 Patiala Jai Pal Mali Mali Cleaner Flying Squad Beldar Beldar Flying Squad Beldar Flying Squad Beldar Mali

31.03.14 Patiala Shri Ram Mali

31.03.14 Patiala Prem Chand Flying Squad Beldar

31.03.14 Patiala Phul Chand Mali

31.03.14 Patiala Atma Singh Mali

31.03.14 Patiala

31.03.14 Patiala Surjit Singh Ranger Beldar Gulzar Singh Ranger Beldar Gurbachan Singh Ranger Beldar

31.03.14 Patiala Om Parkash

31.03.14 Patiala Madan Lal

31.03.14 Patiala

31.03.14 Patiala Chuhar Ram Krishan Chand Bharpur Singh Ujaggar Singh Ram Kishore Beldar Ranger Beldar Sewer- Flying Squad Beldar Flying Squad Beldar Flying Squad Beldar Beldar

31.03.14 Patiala Tek Singh Beldar

31.03.14 Patiala Amarjit Singh Ranger Beldar Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Service Parti- culars, if 22.12.79

26.06.79

01.10.92

27.08.91

19.06.07

16.07.79

15.06.07

09.01.04

15.06.07

17.05.77

15.06.07

31.07.06

09.04.01

09.04.01 Not available Not available Not available

09.04.01

15.05.77 Not available Not available

09.04.01 369 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 92131 233642 193318 199841 199841 9506 22652 9700 84915 9700 240758 18500 195714 84915 84915 84915 25916 84915 32079 84915 85170 240758 10476 9506 84915 Period of Claim

01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 19.06.07 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 15.06.07 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 15.06.07 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 15.06.07 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.07.06 01.01.02 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 10.01.06 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 13.04.06 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 16.05.07 31.05.08 19.06.07 31.05.08 01.01.02 31.05.08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 05008 of 2015 462 of 08 06187 of 2015 471 of 08 06211 of 2015 472 of 08 06788 of 2015 417 of 08 18298 of 2016 469 of 08 19267 of 2016 468 of 08 04121 of 2015 438 of 08

31.03.14 Patiala Ram Pal

31.03.14 Patiala Shiv Raj

31.03.14 Patiala Rishi Pal

31.03.14 Patiala

13.05.15 Patiala

30.03.16 Patiala

31.03.14 Patiala Pritam Kaur wd/o Kartar Singh Hardeep Singh Puran Chand Budhu Khan Ranger Beldar Chowki- Chowki- Beldar (expired) Beldar Ranger Beldar Mali Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Municipal Corporation, Patiala Service Parti- culars, if 09.04.01 Not available Not available Died on 10.11.06

10.10.77

11.10.77

14.10.77 370 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 84915 43930 36225 173712 240758 263292 240758 Period of Claim

01.01.02 31.05.08 17.03.06 31.05.08 17.03.06 TO 31.05.08 01.01.97 08.11.06

01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 01.01.97 31.05.08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 371 ANNEXURE: ‘J’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT [(C) – Cases of Municipal Committee, Jalalabad] [10 cases – Sr. Nos. 382 to 391] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

30.04.12 Bathinda Sukhdev Raj

30.04.12 Bathinda Tarlok Singh Pump Operator Pump Operator Municipal Committee, Jalalabad -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Mukhtiar Chand Pump Operator -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Ram Chand Pump Operator -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Subash Chander Pump Operator -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Sher Singh

30.04.12 Bathinda Ram Partap

30.04.12 Bathinda Des Raj

30.04.12 Bathinda Makhan Lal

30.04.12 Bathinda Hargobind Singh Pump Operator -do- Pump Operator -do- Pump Operator -do- Pump Operator -do- -do- Mali/ Chowki-

30.04.12 Bathinda Babu Lal Ram Mali/ -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda

30.04.12 Bathinda Sukhdev Singh Jagdish Kumar Krishan Kumar Chowki- Sewer- Tractor Driver Sewer- -do- -do- -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Suresh Kumar Sewer- -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Ram Pal Sewer- -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Kewal Krishan Sewadar -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Sukhdev Raj

30.04.12 Bathinda Tarlok Singh Pump Operator Pump Operator Municipal Committee, Jalalabad -do- Not available -do- Service Parti- culars, if Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 72871 86146 77057 72950 67348 67348 54982 63372 79320 58076 61131 41615 61219 58896 42205 41629 48704 72871 86146 Period of Claim

01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.06.94 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.08.94 01.03.02 07.05.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.08.94 01.03.02 01.08.94 01.03.02 01.05.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 382 09011 2013 383 09719 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 372 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 117 of 2002 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

30.04.12 Bathinda Mukhtiar Chand Pump Operator -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Ram Chand Pump Operator -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Subash Chander Pump Operator -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Sher Singh

30.04.12 Bathinda Ram Partap

30.04.12 Bathinda Des Raj

30.04.12 Bathinda Makhan Lal

30.04.12 Bathinda Hargobind Singh Pump Operator -do- Pump Operator -do- Pump Operator -do- Pump Operator -do- -do- Mali/ Chowki-

30.04.12 Bathinda Babu Lal Ram Mali/ -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda

30.04.12 Bathinda Sukhdev Singh Jagdish Kumar Krishan Kumar Chowki- Sewer- Tractor Driver Sewer- -do- -do- -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Suresh Kumar Sewer- -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Ram Pal Sewer- -do-

30.04.12 Bathinda Kewal Krishan Sewadar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

11.02.14 Bathinda Vijay Kumar

11.02.14 Bathinda Chaman Lal @ Chamal Lal

11.02.14 Bathinda Ram Kishan

11.02.14 Bathinda Maya Devi

11.02.14 Bathinda Pappu Ram

11.02.14 Bathinda Om Parkash

11.02.14 Bathinda Gurbax Lal

11.02.14 Bathinda Ram Avtar Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad Sweeper Municipal Council, Jalalabad

19.02.97

01.05.77

06.11.85

09.04.83

01.09.84

06.11.85

19.02.97

19.02.97 77057 72950 67348 67348 54982 63372 79320 58076 61131 41615 61219 58896 42205 41629 48704 246000 395216 345700 295000 394500 385000 240000 246000

01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.06.94 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.08.94 01.03.02 07.05.93 01.03.02 01.01.93 01.03.02 01.08.94 01.03.02 01.08.94 01.03.02 01.05.93 01.03.02 19.02.97 31.12.08 01.05.77 31.12.08 06.11.85 31.12.08 09.04.83 31.12.08 01.09.84 31.12.08 06.11.85 31.12.08 19.02.97 31.12.08 19.02.97 31.12.08 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 08414 2014 08417 2014 08419 2014 08420 2014 08423 2014 08424 2014 08478 2014 08882 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 373 ANNEXURE: ‘K’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT [(D) – Cases of Nagar Council, Abohar] [05 cases – Sr. Nos. 392 to 396] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 392 09973 2015 393 09893 2015 394 09904 2015 395 09905 2015 396 09955 2015 165 of 08 165 of 08 165 of 08 165 of 08 165 of 08 162 of 08 162 of 08 162 of 08 162 of 08 162 of 08 164 of 08 164 of 08 164 of 08 164 of 08 163 of 08 163 of 08 163 of 08 166 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

04.09.13 Bathinda Bag Singh Mali

04.09.13 Bathinda Bhagwan Singh Mali Nagar Council, Abohar -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Des Raj Mali -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Gore Lal Mali -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Brahma Shankar Mali -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Pritam Singh Mali

04.09.13 Bathinda Amin Chand Mali Nagar Council, Abohar -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Ram Dass Mali -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Kapil Dev Mali -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Khajan Chand Mali -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Dharam Pal

04.09.13 Bathinda

04.09.13 Bathinda Sampat Ram @ Sumer Singh Ashok Kumar Chowki- Chowki- Chowki- Nagar Council, Abohar -do- -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Krishan Lal Mali -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Rani wd/o Roshan Lal Chowki-

04.09.13 Bathinda

04.09.13 Bathinda Ram Kali wd/o Ram Chabila Ram Siri wd/o Daya Ram Hira Lal Nagar Council, Abohar -do- Beldar Mali -do- Beldar Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Abohar Service Parti- culars, if Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- Not available Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 127583 73598 52895 66329 118201 118974 106627 129203 121965 124299 140352 107932 25853 117477 258353 35142 33777 123334 Period of Claim

01.01.98 0201.08 01.01.98 01.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 02.01.08 01.01.98 01.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 01.07.01 01.01.98 01.01.02 01.01.98 05.05.01 01.01.98 02.01.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 166 of 08 166 of 08 166 of 08 166 of 08

04.09.13 Bathinda

04.09.13 Bathinda Badri Prashad Chetan Parkash Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Om Parkash Beldar -do-

04.09.13 Bathinda Bishan Lal Beldar -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- 374 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 120337 108824 102138 129739 Period of Claim

01.01.98 01.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.03.08 01.01.98 31.12.06 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 375 ANNEXURE: ‘L’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT [(E) – Cases of Municipal Council, Sangrur] [17 cases – Sr. Nos. 397 to 413] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 04623 2017 04624 2017 05619 2017 05620 2017 05621 2017 05622 2017 05623 2017 05624 2017 05625 2017 05626 2017 05627 2017 05628 2017 05629 2017 05666 2017 05748 2017 05768 2017 736 of 2014 717 of 2014 329 of 2014 732 of 2014 714 of 2014 712 of 2014 713 of 2014 733 of 2014 708 of 2014 719 of 2014 710 of 2014 716 of 2014 718 of 2014 709 of 2014 715 of 2014 731 of 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

24.11.15 Patiala Nahar Singh

24.11.15 Patiala

02.02.16 Patiala Harbhajan Singh Mohinder Singh

24.11.15 Patiala Jit Singh

24.11.15 Patiala Madan Dass Pump Operator/ Junior Techni- Pump Operator Fitter Pump Operator/ Junior Techni- Pump Operator

24.11.15 Patiala Jagan Nath Helper

24.11.15 Patiala Surjit Singh Pump Operator Pump Operator/ Junior Techni- Mali Pump Operator Helper

24.11.15 Patiala Daljit Kumar Ramesh Kumar Jarnail Singh Parab Dayal

24.11.15 Patiala

24.11.15 Patiala Baldev Krishan Pump Operator Sukhwinder Singh Pump Operator

24.11.15 Patiala Joti Ram Mali

24.11.15 Patiala Harbans Singh Pump Operator

24.11.15 Patiala Karnail Singh Pump Operator/ Junior Techni- Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Municipal Council, Sangrur Service Parti- culars, if Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Period of Claim

01.08.08 31.03.11

01.08.08 31.05.11 08.11.01 30.09.12 01.08.08 31.03.11

01.08.08 31.05.11 01.08.08 08.05.14 01.08.08 31.05.11 01.08.08 08.05.11

01.08.08 30.11.12 01.08.08 31.05.11 01.08.08 08.05.11 01.08.08 31.05.11 01.08.08 08.05.11 01.08.08 08.05.11 01.08.08 31.05.11 01.08.08 31.08.12 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 94289 361564 337530 123254 303836 209536 101642 256822 130920 247446 209536 303836 248006 210068 303836 207328 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 413 05775 2017 711 of 2014

24.11.15 Patiala Ballu Singh Helper Municipal Council, Sangrur 376 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.08.08 08.05.14 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 209536 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 377 ANNEXURE: ‘M’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT [(F) – Cases of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana] [02 cases – Sr. Nos. 414 & 415] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 414 21211 2015 593 of 2013

01.10.14 Ludhiana Paramjit Singh Mason Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Service Parti- culars, if Not available 594 of 2013 596 of 2013 597 of 2013 598 of 2013 600 of 2013 601 of 2013 602 of 2013 603 of 2013 604 of 2013 605 of 2013 606 of 2013 607 of 2013 608 of 2013 610 of 2013 611 of 2013 612 of 2013 613 of 2013 614 of 2013 615 of 2013 616 of 2013 617 of 2013 618 of 2013 620 of 2013 621 of 2013 622 of 2013 623 of 2013

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shaminder Singh Prabhu Nath Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Prem Bahadur

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jai Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ranjit Kaur wd/o Amar Nath Ashok Kumar Mali/ Beldar Mali/ Beldar Beldar -do- -do- -do- Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sukhpal Singh Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raja Ram Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Hari Parshad Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bishan Pal Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tapeshwar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Alga Ram Mali/ Beldar Beldar -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bhola Nath Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tulsi Ram Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mahaveer Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Gurbachan Singh Hari Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sham Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kamaljit Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Lakhan Lal Mali/ Beldar Mali/ Beldar Beldar Mali/ Beldar Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tek Chand Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Laljit

01.10.14 Ludhiana Siya Ram Mali/ Beldar Beldar -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bhagwan Bux Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Joginder Singh Bhatti Darshan Singh Oil Man -do- Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Period of Claim Jan., 1988 to Nov., 1995 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Amount Claimed (in Rs.) @ Rs. 400/- per -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jog Parsad Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jasbir Singh Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Makhan Singh Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Achal Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rajinder Singh Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Lakhan Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bhagwan Parsad Vijay Parsad

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shyam Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Gurcharan Singh Tarsem Singh Vishnu Devi wd/o Tikka Ram Mewa Lal Beldar -do- Mali/ Beldar Beldar -do- -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Narinder Singh Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Chhedi Ram Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bihari Lal Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Chhote Lasl Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Sattan Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Khelwan

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Housala Parsad Ram Jattan Mali/ Beldar Mali/ Beldar Beldar -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ravinder Singh Beldar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Adharkhan Bhagirath Mali/ Beldar Mason -do- Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Not available

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Haushal Parsdsad Ram Jattan Not available -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Krishan Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kishan Lal -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Meena Kumari -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shukla Parshad -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Pani Ran

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sant Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tej Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Guddi Devi

01.10.14 Ludhiana Soma -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Pawan Kumar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 378 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Jan., 1986 to Dec., 1996 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- @ Rs. 600/- per -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 624 of 2013 625 of 2013 626 of 2013 627 of 2013 628 of 2013 629 of 2013 630 of 2013 631 of 2013 632 of 2013 633 of 2013 634 of 2013 635 of 2013 636 of 2013 639 of 2013 640 of 2013 643 of 2013 645 of 2013 646 of 2013 647 of 2013 648 of 2013 649 of 2013 650 of 2013 651 of 2013 278 of 2013 279 of 2013 280 of 2013 281 of 2013 282 of 2013 283 of 2013 284 of 2013 285 of 2013 286 of 2013 287 of 2013 288 of 2013 289 of 2013 290 of 2013 415 26154 2015 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 292 of 2013 293 of 2013 294 of 2013 295 of 2013 296 of 2013 297 of 2013 298 of 2013 299 of 2013 300 of 2013 301 of 2013 302 of 2013 303 of 2013 304 of 2013 305 of 2013 306 of 2013 307 of 2013 308 of 2013 309 of 2013 311 of 2013 312 of 2013 313 of 2013 314 of 2013 317 of 2013 318 of 2013 319 of 2013 320 of 2013 321 of 2013 323 of 2013 324 of 2013 325 of 2013 327 of 2013 328 of 2013 330 of 2013 331 of 2013 332 of 2013 333 of 2013 334 of 2013 336 of 2013

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sanjay Sharma -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Widya Rani -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Amarjeet Kaur -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Om Pal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raj Kumar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Des Raj -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Barkhu Ram -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dinesh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ganga Deen -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Babu Nandan -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raj Pal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kirpal Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Heeraj Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Jattan

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shyam

01.10.14 Ludhiana Banarsi Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raval Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Halku

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dhoo Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Daljit Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tulsi Ram -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Lakhbir Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Phool Mati

01.10.14 Ludhiana Manto Devi

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ajora Devi -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Suraj Narayann -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Dyal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vinod Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kirpal Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kartar Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jokhu Ram -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Shankar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Om Parkash -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Meena

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vimla Devi -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kulwant Kaur -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Parvati Devi

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rameshwer -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 379 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raja Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Bihari

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Kishan

01.10.14 Ludhiana Roshan Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ashok Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mangal Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shambu

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raja Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Baij Nath

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Kumar -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Abhilakh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Bhadur -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Harbans Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mangal -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Naresh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dalip Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dhan Kali -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Romesh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Lajwanti wd/o Ram Parsad Bhan Mati -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Amarjit Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Hem Raj -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rajesh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raj Paul

01.10.14 Ludhiana Desh Raj

01.10.14 Ludhiana Buta Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Govind

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vishav Nath

01.10.14 Ludhiana Chhedi Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sita Ram -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Prabhu Nath -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Gurdyal Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kishori Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vijay Kumar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shyam Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Piare Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Latori -- -- Jaswinder -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 337 of 2013 338 of 2013 340 of 2013 341 of 2013 342 of 2013 344 of 2013 345 of 2013 347 of 2013 348 of 2013 349 of 2013 351 of 2013 353 of 2013 354 of 2013 355 of 2013 359 of 2013 360 of 2013 361 of 2013 362 of 2013 363 of 2013 367 of 2013 368 of 2013 369 of 2013 370 of 2013 373 of 2013 375 of 2013 376 of 2013 377 of 2013 378 of 2013 379 of 2013 380 of 2013 381 of 2013 382 of 2013 383 of 2013 384 of 2013 385 of 2013 386 of 2013 387 of 2013 -- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 380 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Department -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Lal Chand

01.10.14 Ludhiana Anil Kumar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Parveen Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Chet Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tarsem Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Lali Devi -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Randhir Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vajir Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ravinder Kumar Rama Shankar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Prem Sagar -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Karanjit Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Hari Lal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Gulzar Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Das Ram -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Deepak Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bant Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Surinder Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Cahnder -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jawala Parshad Amarjit Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raj Kumar -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kiran Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dalbir Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Manjit Kaur

01.10.14 Ludhiana Paras Nath

01.10.14 Ludhiana Nathu Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Babu Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raja Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Hans Raj

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jiwan Singh -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sudami Devi -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mohinder Pal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Pyare Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sita Devi

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jagir Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Kirpal -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Siroman -do- 389 of 2013 390 of 2013 392 of 2013 393 of 2013 394 of 2013 396 of 2013 397 of 2013 398 of 2013 399 of 2013 400 of 2013 401 of 2013 402 of 2013 404 of 2013 405 of 2013 406 of 2013 407 of 2013 408 of 2013 409 of 2013 410 of 2013 411 of 2013 412 of 2013 413 of 2013 414 of 2013 415 of 2013 416 of 2013 417 of 2013 419 of 2013 420 of 2013 421 of 2013 422 of 2013 423 of 2013 424 of 2013 425 of 2013 426 of 2013 427 of 2013 428 of 2013 429 of 2013 430 of 2013 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 381 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Department -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 431 of 2013 432 of 2013 433 of 2013 434 of 2013 435 of 2013 436 of 2013 437 of 2013 438 of 2013 439 of 2013 440 of 2013 441 of 2013 442 of 2013 443 of 2013 444 of 2013 445 of 2013 446 of 2013 449 of 2013 450 of 2013 451 of 2013 452 of 2013 454 of 2013 455 of 2013 459 of 2013 460 of 2013 461 of 2013 462 of 2013 463 of 2013 464 of 2013 466 of 2013 467 of 2013 468 of 2013 469 of 2013 470 of 2013 471 of 2013 472 of 2013 473 of 2013 474 of 2013 475 of 2013

01.10.14 Ludhiana Babu Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Amar Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Munna Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Gulam

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bhupinder Kumar Tilak Raj

01.10.14 Ludhiana Asha Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tara Chand

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bajrangi

01.10.14 Ludhiana Malkit Singh -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Veena Jasra -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Subhdra Devi -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Harinder Parshad Om Parkash -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jaswant Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Om Parkash -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Inderjit Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rajinder Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Bharose -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Munni Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Roshan Lal -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rakesh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Bahadur -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kali Parsad

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Nath -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Gurpreet Kaur -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Barjinder Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Badami Devi -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mithai Lal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rakesh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Kulwasny

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Bali

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Ajara

01.10.14 Ludhiana Balbir Singh -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shiv Parshad -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dharam Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Pyare Lal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Partap Singh -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 382 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 477 of 2013 478 of 2013 479 of 2013 483 of 2013 484 of 2013 485 of 2013 487 of 2013 488 of 2013 489 of 2013 490 of 2013 491 of 2013 492 of 2013 493 of 2013 494 of 2013 495 of 2013 496 of 2013 497 of 2013 498 of 2013 499 of 2013 500 of 2013 501 of 2013 503 of 2013 504 of 2013 505 of 2013 507 of 2013 509 of 2013 510 of 2013 511 of 2013 514 of 2013 515 of 2013 516 of 2013 517 of 2013 518 of 2013 519 of 2013 520 of 2013 521 of 2013 523 of 2013

01.10.14 Ludhiana Surindera -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bhagwan Dass -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Radhika Devi -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Davinder

01.10.14 Ludhiana Madan Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Bachan Lal -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sukhdev Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Suresh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ganga Devi

01.10.14 Ludhiana Munni Devi

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dukhi Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Kali -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Paramjit Kaur -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Harjinder Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mithai Lal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Taranjit Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Yogesh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Tejinder Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mohinder -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Paramjit Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shammi Kapoor Om Parkash

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jasbir -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rajan Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Samujh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rakesh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Atwari Lal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ranbir Singh -do-

01.10.14 01.10.14 Ludhiana Ludhiana Pala Ram Bahadur Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Balbir Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rani

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raghu Nath

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mohit Ram -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sarabjit Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jaggo

01.10.14 Ludhiana Harbans Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Basanti -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 383 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 526 of 2013 527 of 2013 528 of 2013 529 of 2013 530 of 2013 531 of 2013 532 of 2013 533 of 2013 534 of 2013 535 of 2013 536 of 2013 537 of 2013 538 of 2013 539 of 2013 540 of 2013 541 of 2013 543 of 2013 544 of 2013 545 of 2013 546 of 2013 547 of 2013 548 of 2013 550 of 2013 551 of 2013 552 of 2013 553 of 2013 554 of 2013 555 of 2013 556 of 2013 557 of 2013 558 of 2013 559 of 2013

01.10.14 Ludhiana Shyam Sunder -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Chet Ram -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Premjit Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Pati Raj

01.10.14 Ludhiana Amrik Singh -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jagga Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ramesh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Chote Lal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Punjab Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Raj Kumar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ram Lal

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ranpati -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Makhan Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana

01.10.14 Ludhiana Balwinder Singh Shiv Shanakar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Inder Pal -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Karnail Singh -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mansa Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mangat Rai

01.10.14 Ludhiana Dev Singh

01.10.14 Ludhiana Som Nath

01.10.14 Ludhiana Gurchran

01.10.14 Ludhiana Ganga Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Amarjit

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vijay Kumar

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vidiya Dutt

01.10.14 Ludhiana Vishnu

01.10.14 Ludhiana Sant Ram

01.10.14 Ludhiana Jiya Lal -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Rajesh Kumar -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Mohan Lal -do-

01.10.14 Ludhiana Joginder Singh -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 384 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 385 ANNEXURE: ‘N’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF SELF GOVERNMENT [(G) – Cases of Municipal Corporation, Rajpura] [02 cases – Sr. Nos. 416 & 417] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 416 01727 2015 417 01747 2015 478 of 08 479 of 08 480 of 08 481 of 08 483 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

15.07.14 Patiala Ram Bhajan

15.07.14 Patiala Ved Kumari Chowki- Junior Librarian Municipal Corporation, Rajpura -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Ram Lakhan Chowki- -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Rajinder Helper -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Balwant Kaur Peon -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Dharam Mali

15.07.14 Patiala

15.07.14 Patiala Mathura Dass Prem Chand Municipal Corporation, Rajpura -do- Mali Mali -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Dhan Raj Mali -do-

15.07.14 Patiala

15.07.14 Patiala Gurpreet Singh LR of Mukhtiar Singh Dharam Singh Jarnail Singh Mali upto 21.03.03 -do- Mali -do- Mali -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Raj Kumar Mali -do-

15.07.14 Patiala

15.07.14 Patiala Khushi Ram Harish Kumar Harbans Lal Mali -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Shiv Ram Beldar -do-

15.07.14 Patiala

15.07.14 Patiala Satish Kumar Fitter Collie Subhash Chand Chowki- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 226249 362817 260524 212054 226288 110666 101406 101406 103505 37168 103505 101406 76680 102557 99386 76680 97380 76680 114326 Period of Claim

01.08.02 31.05.08 01.08.02 31.05.08 01.08.02 31.05.08 01.08.02 31.05.08 01.08.02 31.05.08 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07

01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08 280 of 08

15.07.14 Patiala Naveen Kumar Beldar -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Shri Pal Mali -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Prem Singh Mali -do-

15.07.14 Patiala Bhag Singh Mali -do-

15.07.14 Patiala

15.07.14 Patiala Randhir Singh Nasib Singh Rajinder Kumar Uma Shankar Gurpreet Singh Mali -do- Beldar Mali -do- -do- Beldar -do- Mali -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 386 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 79262 113396 110666 110666 101406 74377 79262 99969 14472 Period of Claim

01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 01.08.99 30.10.07 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 387 ANNEXURE: ‘O’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB [Total 34 cases, Sr. Nos. 418 to 451] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 418 08696 2019 113 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Davinder Singh Air Condi- tioner Mecha-nic 419 08699 2019 123 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Bahadur Singh 420 08700 2019 116 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Jeet Lal Techni- Pump Operator Sewer- 421 08703 2019 112 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Kasturi Lal Helper 422 08705 2019 11 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Shangar Singh Techni- cian, Pump Operator 423 08707 2019 101 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Tarlok Chand Gupta Electri- 424 08708 2019 110 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Inder Singh Oilman 425 08709 2019 99 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Bihari Lal Fitter (Techni- cian) 426 08711 2019 128 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Inderjit Singh Mali/ Chowki- Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Service Parti- culars, if any Not availabl e Period of Claim Not available Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 99000 Not availabl e Not available 48408 Not availabl e Not available 68250 Not availabl e Not available 101856 Not availabl e Not available 90150 Not availabl e Not available 107346 Not availabl e Not available 64668 Not availabl e Not available 78468 Not availabl e Not available 53982 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 427 08712 2019 107 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Rajinder Pal Modgil 428 08714 2019 100 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Tarlochan Singh Techni- (Pump Operator) Techni- (Pump Operator) 429 08715 2019 121 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Jeet Ram Helper 430 08716 2019 96 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Satinder Kumar Helper 431 08718 2019 109 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Baljinder Singh Techni- (Pump Operator) 432 08719 2019 92 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Gurwinder Singh Bajwa Fitter (Techni- cian) 433 08721 2019 111 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Pal Singh 434 08722 2019 108 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Nachattar Singh 435 08723 2019 98 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Kewal Krishan Sehgal 436 08725 2019 106 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Shiv Kumar 437 08726 2019 97 of 2006

07.12.16 Ludhiana Tilak Raj Dogra Techni- (Pump Operator) Techni- (Pump Operator) Techni- (Pump Operator) Sewer- Techni- (Pump Operator) Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Ludhiana 388 Period of Claim Not available Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 82644 Service Parti- culars, if any Not availabl e Not availabl e Not available 87648 Not availabl e Not available 41058 Not availabl e Not available 41760 Not availabl e Not available 87648 Not availabl e Not available 46512 Not availabl e Not available 82950 Not availabl e Not available 77640 Not availabl e Not available 95652 Not availabl e Not available 50262 Not availabl e Not available 90150 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 438 08332 2015 23 of 2012

02.01.14 Bathinda Hurshi Kesh Plumber 23 of 2012 23 of 2012 34 of 2012

02.01.14 Bathinda Om Parkash

02.01.14 Bathinda Khushi Ram

02.01.14 Bathinda Ram Bahadur 439 07624 2015 440 11163 2015 25 of 2012

02.01.14 Bathinda Harjit Singh Store Chowki- Beldar Mali-cum- Chowki- Store Chowki- 441 11377 2015 33 of 2012

02.01.14 Bathinda Abhay Raj Chowki- 442 16284 2015 24 of 2012

01.04.14 Bathinda France Masih Plumber Helper 443 16850 2015 183 of 08

29.10.13 Bathinda Sohan Lal Mali-cum- Chowki- 183 of 08

29.10.13 Bathinda Victor R. Singh Fitter Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Sub Division No. 3, Faridkot -do- -do- Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Sub Division No. 3, Faridkot Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Sub Division No. 3, Faridkot Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Sub Division No. 2, Faridkot Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Sub Division No. 1, Faridkot Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot -do- 389 Service Parti- culars, if any Not availabl e Period of Claim

15.11.99 31.12.11 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 190000 -do- -do- Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 15.11.99 31.12.11 15.11.99 31.12.11 142000 105900 186240 Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 75000 Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 185110 Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 185210 Not availabl e From 01.11.99 onwards 143026 Not availabl e From 01.11.99 onwards 166781 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 444 18156 2015 28 of 2012

01.04.14 Bathinda Shiv Dayal Chowki- 445 07604 2015 35 of 2012 35 of 2012 32 of 2012 32 of 2012 38 of 2012 38 of 2012 36 of 2012 36 of 2012 22 of 2012 446 07609 2015 447 07636 2015 448 07740 2015 449 08063 2015

01.04.14 Bathinda Balbir Singh Mali-cum- Chowki- Chowki-

01.04.14 Bathinda Sube Singh

01.04.14 Bathinda Tarsem Lal Beldar

01.04.14 Bathinda Sukha Singh Beldar

01.04.14 Bathinda Jugraj Singh Beldar

01.04.14 Bathinda

01.04.14 Bathinda Hakam Singh Mansukh Singh Mali-cum- Chowki- Pump Operator

01.04.14 Bathinda Kuldeep Singh Pump Operator

01.04.14 Bathinda Ram Sunder Mali 450 08331 2015 70 of 2012

02.01.14 Bathinda Surjit Singh Fitter (Retd.) 451 16171 2015 37 of 2012

01.04.14 Bathinda Gurdeep Singh Plumber Helper Superintendi ng Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation Circle, Faridkot Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot -do- Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply & Sanitation Division, Faridkot 390 Service Parti- culars, if any Not availabl e Period of Claim

15.11.99 31.12.11 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 186560 Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 185110 -do- Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 15.11.99 31.12.11 185570 186000 -do- Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 15.11.99 31.12.11 186000 186110 -do- -do- 186110 Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 185110 -do- Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 15.11.99 31.12.11 185110 185510 Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.01.09 152142 Not availabl e

15.11.99 31.12.11 185240 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 37 of 2012 37 of 2012 37 of 2012

01.04.14 Bathinda Captan Singh Keyman -do-

01.04.14 Bathinda Rampal

01.04.14 Bathinda Nem Chand Office Chowki- Chowki- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if any -do- -do- -do- 391 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 185110 186000 185110 Period of Claim

15.11.99 31.12.11 15.11.99 31.12.11 15.11.99 31.12.11 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 392 ANNEXURE: ‘P’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [Total 28 cases, Sr. Nos. 452 to 479] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 19411 2014 13 of 2009 19412 2014 12 of 2009 19413 2014 10 of 2009 19414 2014 15 of 2009 19415 2014 11 of 2009 19417 2014 48 of 2009 19418 2014 19419 2014 19420 2014 19421 2014 19422 2014 91 of 2009 92 of 2009 90 of 2009 93 of 2009 134 of 2009 19423 2014 136 of 2009 19424 2014 137 of 2009 19425 2014 147 of 2010

08.01.14 Bathinda

08.01.14 Bathinda Kulwant Singh Gurmail Singh

08.01.14 Bathinda Iqbal Singh

08.01.14 Bathinda Balwinder Singh

08.01.14 Bathinda Gurbhej Singh

08.01.14 Bathinda Narinder Kumar

08.01.14 Bathinda Mata Pher

08.01.14 Bathinda Ram Ujjer

08.01.14 Bathinda Harinderjit Singh Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Mali/ Chowki- Mali/ Chowki- Junior Techni- (Pump Operator)

08.01.14 Bathinda Ram Saran Mali/

08.01.14 Bathinda

08.01.14 Bathinda Harbans Singh Hardeep Singh Darshan Singh

10.01.14 Bathinda Jagga Singh Chowki- Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Assis-tant Pump Operator PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.07.99 onwards Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 182392 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 207887 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 127473 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 170674 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 133139 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 147401 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 151859 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 111327 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 182392 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 111327 Not available

01.07.99 31.05.08 191467 Not available

01.01.03 onwards 83320 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 207887 Municipal Council, Ferozepur Not available

01.07.99 to July, 2009 111327 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 393 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.07.99 onwards Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 111327 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 133139 Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Not available Not available -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 117352 151859 151859 182392 170674 170674

01.07.99 31.12.07 01.07.99 31.12.08

01.07.99 31.12.08

01.07.99 31.12.08 Municipal Council, Ferozepur Not available

01.07.99 10.11.05 84281 Municipal Council, Ferozepur Not available

01.07.99 21.11.07

96511.50 Municipal Council, Ferozepur -do- -do- Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Not available

01.07.99 onwards 147401 -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available

01.07.99 31.12.08 125822 125822

151859.3 0 Not available

01.07.99 31.12.08 198299 Not available

01.07.99 onwards

111327.3 0 Not available

01.07.99 31.12.08

147401.7 0 466 467 468 469 19426 2014 19427 2014 19428 2014 19429 2014 233 of 2009 291 of 2009 135 of 2009 264 of 08 264 of 08 264 of 08 264 of 08 264 of 08

08.01.14 Bathinda

08.01.14 Bathinda Ram Sanjiwan Krishan Chand

08.01.14 Bathinda Lalai Ram

08.01.14 Bathinda Kashmir Singh

08.01.14 Bathinda Nirmal Singh

08.01.14 Bathinda Ravinder Pal

08.01.14 Bathinda

08.01.14 Bathinda Partap Singh Bikkar Singh 470 19430 2014 95 of 2009

08.01.14 Bathinda Soma Devi wd/o Daljit Singh 471 25325 2016 138 of 2009

15.10.15 Bathinda 472 19416 2014 16 of 2009

08.01.14 Bathinda 16 of 2009 16 of 2009 147 of 2013

08.01.14 Bathinda

19.09.14 Bathinda 06235 2015 06204 2015 134 of 2013 06245 2015 06255 2015 146 of 2013 596 of 2012

19.09.14 Bathinda

19.09.14 Bathinda 473 474 475 476 Sheela Rani wd/o Ramesh Kumar Vijay Kumar Mukhtiar Singh Balwant Singh Nishan Singh Darshan Singh Dinesh Kumar Gurmeet Singh Fitter/ Coolle Electri- Helper Fitter Coolle Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Husband of Soma Devi was Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Husband of Sheela Rani was Mali/ Chowki- Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Beldar Beldar Fitter Chargem (Retired 31.05.10) Mali/ Chowki- Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 394 Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim

01.07.99 31.12.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 83320 Not available

01.07.99 onwards 127473 Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Municipal Council, Ferozepur Not available

01.07.99 31.12.08 207887 477 478 479 06725 2015 595 of 2012 19410 2014 14 of 2009 16982 2016 611 of 2012

19.09.14 Bathinda Anokha Singh

08.01.14 Bathinda Surinder Chawla

09.10.15 Bathinda Baldev Raj Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator) Junior Techni- (Pump Operator PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 395 ANNEXURE: ‘Q’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB [01 case, Sr. No. 480] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 480 27408 2016 201 of 2007

05.01.15 Amritsar Gopal Singh Hans M.L.T.-I Civil Hospital, Amritsar; & Chief Medical Officer, Tarn Taran Period of Claim Service Parti- culars, if 09.09.83 Not available Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 422849 (gross amount for all applicant s) M.P.H.W. (F) -do-

31.01.81 -do- 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

05.01.15 Amritsar

05.01.15 Amritsar Santosh Sharma w/o Gurbachan Singh Gurbachan Kaur Jagat Bir Singh Kulwinder Kaur Shiv Raj Singh Balwinder Kaur Salesh Kumar Naranjan Dass Satish Kumar Pushpa Rani Amarjit Kaur Class-IV -do- M.P.H.W. (M) M.P.H.W. (F) M.P.H.W. (M) Staff Nurse M.L.T.-I M.P.H.W. (M) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Class-IV -do- M.P.H.W. (F) L.H.R. -do- -do-

10.12.43 (Retired 30.12.03 ) 07.08.87 -do- -do-

03.04.97 -do-

12.03.91 -do-

27.12.01 -do-

07.12.88 -do-

20.11.68 (Retired 30.06.05 ) 25.06.76 -do- -do-

14.08.86 -do-

09.09.83 (Retired 30.11.06 ) 13.11.45 -do- -do-

22.12.84 -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar

05.01.15 Amritsar Amarjeet Kaur Baljit Kaur L.H.R. M.P.H.W. (F) -do- -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar Roop Singh M.L.T.-I -do-

04.03.89 -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar

05.01.15 Amritsar Jaswant Singh Dharamjit Kaur Driver L.H.R. -do- -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar Parkash Kaur Class-IV -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar

05.01.15 Amritsar Rajinder Kumar Gurmukh Singh Pharmaci Class-IV -do- -do-

17.09.93 -do-

14.09.70 (Retired 31.12.05 ) 10.09.77 (Retired 30.06.05 ) 27.02.87 -do- -do- -do-

07.03.79 -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 396 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- Service Parti- culars, if 09.09.88

26.05.78 -do- Retired 31.10.97 10.04.94 (Expired 09.10.03 ) 06.01.77 -do- -do- -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar

05.01.15 Amritsar Balbir Singh Biker Singh Class-IV Pharmaci

05.01.15 Amritsar Ajit Singh M.P.H.W. (M) -do- -do- -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar Surinder Pal Class-IV -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar Hans Raj Class-IV -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar Avtar Singh Pharmaci -do-

19.09.85 -do-

05.01.15 Amritsar Gurcharan Singh

05.01.15 Amritsar Tilak Raj Chief Pharmaci M.L.T.-II -do- -do-

22.11.68 -do-

14.08.88 -do- 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 201 of 2007 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 397 ANNEXURE: ‘R’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB [Total 02 cases, Sr. Nos. 481 & 482] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 481 09306 2014 31 of 2007

21.05.13 Ludhiana Jagsir Singh Cattle Atten-dant Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab; Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry (Farms), Mattewara, Ludhiana -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if Not available Period of Claim Not available Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 100523 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 52790 68016 116873 107593 115181 161441 107927 106964 75328 59720 75328 59720 107593 81073 146466 102833 58621 102547 111054 143010 111575 83619 106964 111776 65482 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

21.05.13 Ludhiana Nant Ram Beldar

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Raj Kumar Agricultur Gurmeet Singh e Beldar Nihal Singh Agricultur e Beldar Agricultur e Beldar Tractor Driver Class IV Nihal Singh Swarna Ram Mohan Singh Nanku Ram Inal Milk Recorder Agricultur e Beldar Class IV

21.05.13 Ludhiana Hazari Lal Class IV -do- Class IV Ram Khilavan Ram Karan Class IV

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Jarnail Singh Ram Krishan-I Jagraj Singh Bhagirath Raj Joginder Singh Shiv Lal

21.05.13 Ludhiana Sohan Lal

21.05.13 Ludhiana Gurmail Chand

21.05.13 Ludhiana Ram Murti Agricultur e Beldar Agricultur e Beldar Junior Techni- Cattle Atten-dant Class IV Agricultur e Beldar Beldar Atten-dant Junior Techni- Agricultur e Beldar Agricultur e Beldar -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Braham Singh Surjit Singh Cattle Atten-dant Agricultur e Beldar Class IV Ram Murti- II Maan Singh CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department

21.05.13 Ludhiana Ram Babu

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Ram Suresh Swaran Singh Achhe Lel Cattle Atten-dant Class IV Tractor Driver Class IV -do- -do- -do- -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana Arjan Singh Class IV -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Class IV -do- Tractor Driver Agricultur e Beldar Class IV Chhotta Singh Banarsi Dass Rajinder Singh Tarsem Lal Class IV Class IV Kashmira Singh Avtar Singh Pig Atten- Class IV Suresh Kumar Foolan Devi Jokhu Ram Rajinder Singh Sheep Atten-dant Agricultur e Developm ent Officer Bull Atten- Lab Atten- Class IV Mohinder Singh Tarloki Nath Pursnotam Lal Dalel Singh Agricultur e Beldar Class IV Inderjit Chain Ram Sukhdev Singh Thakar Singh Balwinder Singh Mohinder Singh Bhagwati Sheep Atten-dant Bull Atten- Carpen- Sheep Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Agricultur e Beldar Kumla Kaur Agricultur e Beldar Agricultur e Beldar Agricultur e Beldar Cattle Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Cattle Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Class IV Ram Chander Rashpal Ram Surup Dhanpat Hari Pal Hargian Jangli Bhula Singh Roop Lal -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Class-IV -do- 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 398 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 114973 65480 114973 43893 74344 144959 107593 74726 74726 108491 80414 65212 70304 125054 329696 78279 78265 78265 52383 65482 40194 95233 77145 72775 107496 108157 94659 106964 106669 92774 84344 81073 124294 54500 63152 74792 Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Sant Parkash Singh Parag Ram Junior Techni- Sweeper -do- -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana Kuasm Class IV -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Bhikha Ram Gurbachan Singh Jeet lal Paramjit Singh Gurmail Singh Harmesh Lal Ramesh Kumar Mohan lal Tarsem Lad Ram Gulam Ram Piara Jagdish Parsad Chet Ram Sheep Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Class IV -do- -do- -do- -do- Class IV -do- Atten-dant -do- Atten-dant -do- Atten-dant -do- Atten-dant -do- Atten-dant -do- Atten-dant -do- Atten-dant -do- Class IV -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana Jeenak Atten-dant -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Om Parkash Chabbila Ram Om Parkash Kartar Chand Malkoo Ram Ram Charon Chain Ram Gurcharan Singh Khushmind er Singh Vinod Kumar Inderjit Singh Arora Bahadur Singh

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Baldev Singh Sarup Singh Atten-dant -do- Atten-dant -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Pig Atten- Sheep Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Sheep Atten-dant Pig Atten- Class IV Tractor Driver Veterinary Officer Veterinary Officer Agricultur e Developm ent Officer Agricultur e Beldar Agricultur e Developm ent Officer

21.05.13 Ludhiana Bhag Singh Class IV -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Baldev Singh Fodder Officer Hans Raj 78756 -do- 399 Service Parti- culars, if -do- Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) -do- 148952 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 106969 74792 124293 107593 107928 78572 74882 72625 75237 81073 74921 60632 106641 100523 99255 18642 55585 65424 100703 76084 83583 75276 77273 54782 139233 377995 377995 -do- -do- 144209 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 507 593 91131 75296 Class IV -do- -do- -do- 75296 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 400 Period of Claim Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 482 22791 2016 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 31 of 2007 375 of 2014 376 of 2014 377 of 2014 378 of 2014 379 of 2014 380 of 2014 381 of 2014 382 of 2014 383 of 2014 384 of 2014 385 of 2014 386 of 2014 387 of 2014 388 of 2014 389 of 2014 390 of 2014 391 of 2014 392 of 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement -do- -do- -do- Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Patiala; The Assis-tant Director, Animal Husbandry (Farms), Nabha, Patiala -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana Jagria Ram Class IV -do-

21.05.13 Ludhiana

21.05.13 Ludhiana Karnail Singh Ram Kishan-II Mahesh Kumar Budhai Bhajan Singh Jagir Singh

29.02.16 Patiala Ramjeet Class IV -do- Class IV -do- Class IV -do- Agricultur e Beldar Cattle Atten-dant Pig Atten- Beldar

29.02.16 Patiala Kailash Beldar

29.02.16 Patiala Kahan Singh Beldar -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Isharj Beldar -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Pargat Singh Beldar -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Ram Jagat Beldar -do-

29.02.16 Patiala

29.02.16 Patiala Harmail Singh Rajinder Singh Amrik Singh Parag Deen

29.02.16 Patiala Gulle Ram Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Beldar -do- Cattle Atten-dant -do- Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Lachhman Singh Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Jhinkan Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Major Singh Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Abhiraj Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Gulab Singh Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Hanuman

29.02.16 Patiala Nazar Singh Chowki- -do- Sweeper -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not available

23.05.00 31.05.14 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do-

10.07.05 31.05.14 10.07.05 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 75296 81073 73732 73630 102547 106964 71339 12998 85960 85960 129980 129980 129980 129980 129980 129980 189580 189580 189580 189580 189580 189580 189580 129980 120980 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department

29.02.16 Patiala Madan Gopal Chowki-

29.02.16 Patiala Ram Lal

29.02.16 Patiala Paritam Singh

29.02.16 Patiala Ram Avtar

29.02.16 Patiala Mohan Lal -do- -do- -do- Bull Atten- Bull Atten- Cattle Atten-dant -do- Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Dhanna Singh Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Ram Tej Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Bimla Devi Sweeper -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Roop Kaur Sweeper -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Sikandar Singh Sweeper -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Pyara lal Beldar -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Sat Pal Black-

29.02.16 Patiala Sardara Singh Bull Atten- -do- -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Siya Ram Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Harnek Singh Cattle Atten-dant -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Surjit Singh Beldar -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Jang Singh Cattle -do-

29.02.16 Patiala Ajaib Singh

29.02.16 Patiala

29.02.16 Patiala Lakhwinder Kaur wd/o Raghubir Singh Bhajan Kaur wd/o Bhura Singh (deceased) Krishna Devi wd/o Radhey Sham Parvati wd/o Bhole Nath Atten-dant Pig Atten- -do- Beldar -do- Driver -do- -do- Cattle Atten-dant -do- -do- Beldar -do- -do- Service Parti- culars, if -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 401 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 129980 189580 189580 189580 189580 189580 189580 110590 129980 72590 35940 97960 65970 95680 120570 87560 125970 57960 124570 125970 87980 57960 Period of Claim

23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.05.14 14.06.04 31.05.14 23.05.00 31.12.03 23.05.00 31.03.11 23.05.00 30.04.06 23.05.00 31.10.07 23.05.00 31.08.11 23.05.00 30.09.05 23.05.00 31.10.10 23.05.00 31.05.03 23.05.00 04.06.10

23.05.00 25.11.11

23.05.00 19.02.06

23.05.00 05.09.11 393 of 2014 394 of 2014 395 of 2014 396 of 2014 397 of 2014 398 of 2014 399 of 2014 400 of 2014 401 of 2014 402 of 2014 403 of 2014 404 of 2014 405 of 2014 406 of 2014 407 of 2014 408 of 2014 409 of 2014 410 of 2014 411 of 2014 412 of 2014 413 of 2014 414 of 2014 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 402 ANNEXURE: ‘S’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF SAINIK WELFARE, PUNJAB [01 case, Sr. No. 483] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 483 15817 2016 168 of 2009

24.05.16 Jalandhar Tarsem Lal Welfare Worker- cum-Clerk District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 143983 Service Parti- culars, if April, 2004 Period of Claim June, 2006 to March, 2008 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 403 ANNEXURE: ‘T’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF PUNJAB MANDI BOARD [Total 21 cases, Sr. Nos. 484 to 504] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 484 18083 2013 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Market Committee, Malerkotla Punjab Mandi Board, Public Health, Sub Division, Sangrur -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Prem Singh P/O

04.03.13 Patiala Kuldip Singh P/O

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Mohinder Singh Bhola Singh Chowkidar Helper -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Hans Raj Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Makhan Singh P/O -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Lila Singh Sewerman -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Darshan Singh Sewerman -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Rajvir P/O -do-

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Baldev Singh Bikkar Singh Mukhtiar Singh Darshan Singh Vinod Kumar Sewerman -do- Fitter Coolle -do- P/O -do- Fitter Coolle -do- Sewerman -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Jeet Singh Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Amrik Singh Binder Singh Chowkidar -do- Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Baljit Singh Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Tahkur Parshad Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Ram Pal Sewerman -do- Service Parti- culars, if any Not availabl e -do- Period of Claim

01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 107104 42732 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 82578 44809 86280 80163 63165 62504 43802 63431 76278 76858 76137 61434 78603 80043 79717 78153 80648 79892

01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004

04.03.13 Patiala Sajjan Kumar Sewerman -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Pala Ram Sewerman -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Jarnail Singh P/O -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Geja Singh Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Rameshwa r Dass Ram Saroop Supervisor -do- Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Suraj Kant T/Mate -do-

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Gurjant Singh Bahadur Singh P/O P/O

04.03.13 Patiala Ram Gopal Chowkidar Market Committee, Malerkotla Punjab Mandi Board, Public Health, Sub Division, Sangrur -do-

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Ram Sewak Baldev Singh (deceased) through LRs Kallu Ram Darshan Singh (deceased) through LRs Jarnail Singh Ram Charan Plumber -do- P/O -do- Sewerman -do- P/O -do- Chowkidar -do- Sewerman -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Dev Raj Plumber -do-

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Sukhdev Singh Gurjant Singh Sham Sunder Sewerman -do- Chowkidar -do- Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala Hari Singh Chowkidar -do-

04.03.13 Patiala

04.03.13 Patiala Gurdev Singh Chamkaur Singh Fitter -do- Fitter -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if any -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 404 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 80449 79973 95937 78061 107825 46529 83058 56462 95937 78972 91417 96285 64895 80198 83231 64429 51158 27122 22024 71499 74420 100200 63717 Period of Claim

01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04

01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04

01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04

01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 30.05.04 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department

04.03.13 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Labh Singh (deceased) through LRs Jangir Singh (deceased) through LRs Subash Grover Geeta Ran wd/o Chote Ram Nirbhai Singh Chowkidar (Retd.) -do- Chowkidar (Retd.) -do- -do- Supervisor -do- Helper -do- Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Sangrur -do- 485 07209 2015 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 535 of 2004 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

02.07.14 Patiala Ajaib Singh Supervisor

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Jaggar Singh Beant Singh Harbans Singh Varinder Kumar Harjinder Singh Pradeep Singh Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Ram Singh Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Labh Singh Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Surinder Singh Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Baljit Singh Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Balwinder Singh Gurmail Singh Navtej Singh Pritpal Singh Gurcharan Singh Bachan Singh Mohan Lal Gupta Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Ranjit Singh Survey Khalasi -do- Service Parti- culars, if any -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 405 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 45363 43323 107825 42000 165164 165164 147279 147279 138412 165164 165164 137637 147279 147279 147279 147279 137631 147279 137631 137631 149376 147279 137631 147279 Period of Claim

01.01.90 30.06.00

01.01.90 31.11.00

01.01.90 30.05.04 01.01.90 31.05.04 01.11.99 31.03.08

01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08

02.07.14 Patiala Budh Singh Chowkidar -do-

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Sukhwant Singh Balwinder Singh Kewal Singh Satpal Singh Harbans Singh Jaipal Singh Balwinder Singh Dilbagh Singh Sarabjit Singh Balbir Singh Gurmail Kaur wd/o Mela Singh (deceased) , LR Mohinder Singh Dilvar Singh Harkirat Singh Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Patiala -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Seo Ram Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Kamal Krishan Pawan Kumar Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Khushwant Singh Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Satpal Singh Ashok Kumar Supervisor Supervisor

02.07.14 Patiala Mohan Lal Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Chandigarh Executive Engineer (PH), Chandigarh -do-

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Baldhir Singh Ravinder Singh Supervisor -do- Fitter Coolle -do- PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if any -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 406 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 118412 147279 165164 147239 149376 138412 137631 118412 118412 147279 118412 150007 137631 137631 137631 134975 165164 159148 83334 148603 154019 147709 159148 93598 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08

01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08

01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08

01.11.99 31.03.08

01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 797 of 08 137 of 2014 486 20564 2016 Punjab Mandi Board, Divisonal Office, Sangrur -do- -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Parkash Plumber -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Jagroop Singh J.E.

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Ravinder Singh Sarup Singh Harkamal Singh J.E. J.E. Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Sher Singh Supervisor -do-

02.07.14 Patiala

02.07.14 Patiala Bhajan Singh Malkeet Singh Harinder Singh Gurmail Singh Amarpal Singh Baldev Singh Harbhajan Singh Gurbakshis h Singh Darshan Singh Shiri Niwas Dubey Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Rular Driver -do- Rular Driver -do- Car Driver -do- Jeep Driver -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Harnake Chowkidar -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Harjit Singh Helper -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Hari Singh Chowkidar -do-

02.07.14 Patiala Munshi Khan Supervisor -do-

12.01.16 Bathinda Nachhatter Singh Supervisor 487 08315 2014 161 of 08

21.10.13 Bathinda Sarbat Singh Supervisor PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot 407 Service Parti- culars, if any -do- -do- Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 30.09.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 130833 180540 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e 190540 210590 149279 149279 104289 137631 147279 104289 104289 114594 114594 147279 147279 134975 90825 90825 85000 104289 275000

01.11.99 30.09.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.03.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.08.08 28.02.14 Not availabl e

01.11.99 31.07.08 120191 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department

21.10.13 Bathinda Sukhwinder Singh Supervisor -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Jarnail Singh Paramjit Singh Charanjit Singh Kashmir Singh Narinder Pal Singh

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Gursewak Singh Harpal Singh Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot -do- Supervisor -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda Arjan Singh Supervisor -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Sukhwinder Singh Jasbir Singh Nachattar Singh

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Bharpur Singh Varinder Jeet Pure Baldev Singh Kirpal Singh Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot -do- Supervisor -do- Helper -do- Supervisor -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda Harminder Singh Chowkidar Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Ferozepur -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Sukhwant Singh Jawala Parshad Pritpal Singh Samu Mehar Supervisor Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Chowki-dar -do- 488 08316 2014 489 10464 2014 490 10472 2014 161 of 08 161 of 08 161 of 08 161 of 08 161 of 08 160 of 08 160 of 08 160 of 08 160 of 08 160 of 08 160 of 08 128 of 2009 128 of 2009 128 of 2009 128 of 2009 128 of 2009 132 of 2009 132 of 2009 132 of 2009 132 of 2009 132 of 2009 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Service Parti- culars, if any -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- -do- 408 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 144704 137390 137390 137390 120191 123630 123630 137390 137390 144704 144704 90213 140937 138557 104812 133217 137198 115429 144704 142936 112936 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 491 10720 2014 130 of 2009

21.10.13 Bathinda Rakesh Kumar Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Gurpartap Singh Vijay Kumar Gurshavind er Singh Jaswinder Singh Supervisor Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda Ladhu Ram Chowki-dar

21.10.13 Bathinda Ram Chand Chowkidar Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Ferozepur -dlo-

21.10.13 Bathinda Manpal Supervisor -do-

21.10.13 Bathinda Phuman Singh Chowkidar -do-

19.08.14 Bathinda Veer Singh Supervisor

19.08.14 Bathinda Lal Chand Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Muktsar -do-

19.08.14 Bathinda

19.08.14 Bathinda Naresh Kumar Ajmer Singh Malkit Singh Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- Supervisor Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Muktsar -do-

19.08.14 Bathinda Gurbhai Singh Supervisor

19.08.14 Bathinda Atma Ram Supervisor -do-

19.08.14 Bathinda Baljit Singh Supervisor -do-

19.08.14 Bathinda

07.08.14 Patiala Rajwinder Singh Major Singh Supervisor -do- Helper Punjab Mandi Board, Divisional Office, Sangrur 130 of 2009 130 of 2009 130 of 2009 130 of 2009 133 of 2009 133 of 2009 133 of 2009 133 of 2009 127 of 2009 127 of 2009 127 of 2009 127 of 2009 129 of 2009 129 of 2009 129 of 2009 129 of 2009 129 of 2009 1136 of 08 492 10998 2014 493 02231 2015 494 02260 2015 495 07207 2015 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement 409 Service Parti- culars, if any Not availabl e Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.07.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 140937 -do- -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e -do- -do- -do- -do- Not availabl e 134743 140937 141961 141740 112936 112936 120561 112936 137198 144704 120191 144704 137198 144704 137198 144704 137198 9303

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08 1136 of 08

07.08.14 Patiala Balwinder Kumar Helper -do-

07.08.14 Patiala Gurjit Singh Helper -do-

07.08.14 Patiala Tej Singh Helper -do-

07.08.14 Patiala

07.08.14 Patiala Harjinder Singh Balvir Singh Sukhdev Kumar Gopal Chand Dalwinder Singh Madan Singh Inderjit Singh Electrician -do- Helper -do- Helper -do- Helper -do- Electri-cian -do- Helper -do- Electrician -do-

07.08.14 Patiala Kewal Ram Helper -do-

07.08.14 Patiala Amar Singh Supervisor -do-

07.08.14 Patiala

07.08.14 Patiala Gurjant Singh Balwinder Singh Naresh Kumar Helper -do- Electrician -do- Electrician -do-

07.08.14 Patiala Nek Singh Helper -do-

07.08.14 Patiala

07.08.14 Patiala Joginder Singh Manjit Singh Parshotam Singh Darshan Singh Major Singh Jagtar Singh Lovenesh Kumar T-Mate -do- Helper -do- Helper -do- Helper -do- T-Mate -do- Helper -do- Helper -do-

07.08.14 Patiala Bhim Sen Supervisor -do-

07.08.14 Patiala Mohan Lal Supervisor -do- Service Parti- culars, if any -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- 410 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 79513 79513 93035 96733 93035 93035 79513 95035 79513 96733 79513 93035 93035 95035 96733 93035 96693 93035 79513 89729 93035 79513 93035 137000 137000 Period of Claim

02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 02.11.99 31.08.08 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department 1136 of 08 134 of 2014 496 11889 2016

07.08.14 Patiala Balwinder Singh Tractor Driver -do-

12.01.16 Bathinda Varinderjee t Puri Supervisor 497 20565 2016 139 of 2014

12.01.16 Bathinda Gurnam Singh Supervisor 498 20566 2016 127 of 2014

12.01.16 Bathinda Bharpur Singh Supervisor 499 20567 2016 131 of 2014

12.01.16 Bathinda Jasmel Singh Supervisor 500 20568 2016 132 of 2014

12.01.16 Bathinda Balbir Singh Supervisor 501 20569 2016 138 of 2014

12.01.16 Bathinda Jaswinder Singh Supervisoer 502 20570 2016 128 of 2014

12.01.16 Bathinda Baldev Singh Helper 503 20571 2016 136 of 2014

12.01.16 Bathinda Gurshwind er Singh Supervisoer 504 10478 2014 131 of 2009

21.10.13 Bathinda Labh Singh Chowkidar 411 Service Parti- culars, if any -do- Not availabl e Period of Claim

02.11.99 31.08.08 01.08.08 28.02.14 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 147576 339400 Not availabl e

01.08.08 28.02.14 345000 Not availabl e

01.08.08 28.03.14 345000 Not availabl e

01.08.08 28.02.14 314200 Not availabl e

01.08.08 28.02.14 345150 Not availabl e

01.08.08 28.02.14 345000 Not availabl e

01.08.08 28.02.14 344500 Not availabl e

01.08.08 30.09.11 285000 Not availabl e

01.11.99 31.07.08 108951 -do- -do- 134573 115533

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Jaitu, District Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot Executive Engineer (Civil), Punjab Mandi Board, Faridkot -do- 131 of 2009 131 of 2009

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Darshan Singh Jasmail Singh PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement Supervisor Supervisor -do- CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post held Department Service Parti- culars, if any -do- 412 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 80699 122413 Period of Claim

01.11.99 31.07.08 01.11.99 31.07.08 Supervisor -do- Supervisor -do- -do- 131 of 2009 131 of 2009

21.10.13 Bathinda

21.10.13 Bathinda Gurnam Singh Balbir Singh PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) 413 ANNEXURE: ‘U’ BLOCK/CATEGORY OF IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB [Total 07 cases, Sr. Nos. 505 to 511] S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department 505 25518 2012 77 of 2005

01.10.12 Bathinda Muna Ram Beldar (Retd.) 506 26183 2012 359 of 2003

11.09.12 Bathinda Sadhu Singh Beldar (Retd.) 507 00422 2013 220 of 2003

11.09.12 Bathinda Punu Ram Beldar (Retd.) 508 15872 2012 361 of 2003

20.09.11 Bathinda Diwan Chand Sweeper (Retd.) 509 00428 2013 217 of 2003

11.09.12 Bathinda Kartar Singh Boatman (Retd.) 510 12985 2015 513 of 08

14.10.14 Patiala Gurnam Singh Beldar Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ferozepur Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lehal Division, Bara Khua, Patiala Service Parti- culars, if Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Period of Claim 168 Saturday s upto 30.04.00 168 Saturday s upto 29.02.96 168 Saturday s upto 29.02.96 168 Saturday s upto 30.06.92 168 Saturday s upto 29.02.96

01.01.97 31.05.08 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 26500 17600 26500 16800 26500 258548 511 20647 2015 67 of 2007

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Pawan Kumar 67 of 2007

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Kabal Singh 67 of 2007

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Joginder Singh Researc h Assis- (now Assis- Researc h Officer) Researc h Assis- (now Assis- Researc h Officer) Researc h Atten- (Retd.) Ranjit Sagar Dam Project Not available 261821

01.01.00 31.08.07 Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 264644

01.01.00 31.08.07 Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 190136

01.01.00 01.07.05 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP-6535-2017 & connected cases (O&M) S. No. CWP No. App. No. Date of Order Industrial Tribunal Name of applicant Post Department

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Bhajan Dass

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Kartar Singh

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Vijay Kumar

01.04.15 Gurdaspur

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Sukhwinder Singh Randhir Singh

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Madal Lal

01.04.15 Gurdaspur

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Naresh Chander Ramesh Kumar

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Avtar Singh

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Vikas Kumar Lab. Atten- Lab. Atten- (Retd.) Lab. Atten- Lab. Atten- Assis- tant Lab. Atten- (Retd.) Assis- tant Lab. Atten- (now Lab. Atten- dant) Assis- tant Lab. Atten- Assis- tant Lab. Atten- (now Lab. Atten- dant) Assis- Researc h Officer (Retd.) Assis- Researc h Officer Service Parti- culars, if -do- Ranjit Sagar Dam Project Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 414 Amount Claimed (in Rs.) 151506 96943 112929 112929 151674 Period of Claim

01.01.00 31.08.07

01.01.00 29.02.04

01.01.00 31.01.07

01.01.00 31.08.07

01.01.00 31.08.07 Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 112561

01.01.00 31.08.07 Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 116865 112561

01.01.00 31.08.07

01.01.00 31.08.07 Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 113743

01.01.00 30.06.02 Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 265038 268576

01.01.00 30.11.06

01.01.00 31.08.07

01.04.15 Gurdaspur Gaurav Malhotra R.A. (ARO) Ranjit Sagar Dam Project -do- 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 67 of 2007 PRASHANT KAPOOR 2024.08.06 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

Judgment

More cases under Code of Civil Procedure