JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is by the petitioner-State to the awards passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal holding that in case, any Workman has worked on a Saturday, which is a holiday, he/she will be entitled for the salary for working extra on the said day.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the impugned orders have been passed by the Labour Court without considering the actual facts including the letter dated 24.10.1980 (Annexure P/2), according to which, all Saturdays except which fall on a holiday, are working days. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State further submits that once, the Saturdays are working days, any employee, who worked on a Saturday, if the same is not a holiday, he is not entitled for any extra benefit and the extra benefit can only be given in case, the Saturday falls on a holiday and the employee has worked on the said day.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State further submits that the second grievance of the petitioner-State is that without ascertaining as to whether the respondent-Workmen has worked on a Saturday on which date Workmen was not supposed to perform the duties as per work schedule so as to claim the wages for the same, the benefit of extra wages has been extended though, the employee is liable to show that as per the record, he has worked on a particular Saturday, which was beyond his duty hours so as to claim the said benefit and hence, rather than allowing the benefit of all the Saturday enblock for a period of three years prior to the judgment after settling the law, respondent-Workmen should have been asked to prove his/her entitlement for working on a particular Saturday which was officially a holiday so he/she was not liable to perform the duties, so as to claim the benefit of extra wages.

4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-Workmen.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-State and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-State that an employee was required to work on Saturday by placing reliance upon the letter dated 24.10.1980 (Annexure P/2) is not correct as after the said letter, the petitioner-State has issued a letter dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P/9-T), which has also been noticed in Paragraph No. 21 of the impugned award, wherein, the petitioner-State has stated that the Saturday is a holiday in all the Government Gardens, Nurseries and Farms. Once, the said decision was taken, the respondents-Workmen were not required to work on Saturday and in case, Workman has been made to work on a particular Saturday, he/she has rightly been found entitled for the benefit of salary for working on such Saturday. Hence, the said argument has been raised by the petitioner-State without considering their own decision dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P/9-T) hence, the same cannot be accepted.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State has not been able to show that the said decision dated 29.08.2012 has ever been modified by the State so as to direct that the Staff working in the Government Gardens, Nurseries and Farms is not entitled for a holiday on Saturday.

8. That being the factual aspect, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents-Workmen that any Workman, who has worked on a Saturday, will also be entitled for wages for working on such Saturday being a holiday, needs no interference by this Court.

9. Further, with regard to the argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-State that even if an employee has worked on Saturday, he/she has to claim the same by proving the said fact on record and granting the benefit of wages to the Workmen qua all the Saturday even without noticing the fact whether such employee actually worked on the said day or not, is not at all correct, is a valid argument.

10. A Workman is only entitled for the wages i