[2025:RJ-JP:33222] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6791/2012 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sahdev Singh S/o Shri Laduram, R/o Ankwa Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar. 2. Labour Court No.2, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaswant Parsoya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 22/08/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.01.2011 passed by learned Labour Court No.2, Jaipur (Rajasthan) whereby the application under Section 33-C (2) filed by the respondent-workman has been allowed and directions have been given to release payment of work done by the workman on weekly rests/holidays. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the order dated 12.01.2011, has referred general circular dated 14.11.2002, which was also marked as Exhibit-M-2 before the Court below and indicated that as per aforesaid circular, the provision for asking the workman to work on weekly rest was totally prohibited and all the officers were directed not to ask any of the employee to work on weekly rest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid circular dated 14.11.2002 has not been properly [2025:RJ-JP:33222] (2 of 3) [CW-6791/2012] appreciated by the Court below. He submits that as per aforesaid circular, there are specific provisions that in case, on account of any contingency any employee was to be permitted to work on weekly holidays, then for that particular purpose specific orders were to be issued. However, in the instant case, no such specific order permitting the respondent-workman to work on weekly rest was produced by the respondent-workman. In absence of any such order, he was wrongly held entitled for payment of working on such weekly rest. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman, supported the order dated 12.01.2011 and submitted that the order has been passed by the learned Court below after appreciating the pleadings of the parties, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. 5. Learned counsel submits that the factual finding have been arrived at by learned Court below after appreciating the evidence on record. He submitted that, by specifying the different dates in detail, workman came up with an application (W-3) along with a Chart W-4 before the learned Court below, in which it was specified that on the dates mentioned in the aforesaid document, he had worked even on weekly rest. The petitioner-Corporation never decided such applications, nor denied the factual contents mentioned in the application. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-workman that even in the general circular dated 14.11.2002 referred by the petitioner-Corporation, an inference can easily be drawn that even if an employee has been asked to work during weekly rest then for such weekly rest and for such payment, the concerned General Manager and [2025:RJ-JP:33222] (3 of 3) [CW-6791/2012] Manager Traffic/Operation shall be responsible. Under these circumstances, there was no absolute prohibition in the aforesaid circular for making payment of the work done on weekly rest. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. It is evident from the record that general office order/ circular dated 14.11.2002 was placed by the petitioner- Corporation in order to show that there was restriction on forcing the employees to work on weekly rest, yet bare perusal of the aforesaid general order/circular dated 14.11.2002 would also reveal that even if in emergent circumstances of any employee was asked to work on weekly holidays/rest then that would be the sole responsibility of the concerned General Manager and Manager (Traffic/Operation). 8. Learned Court below has also taken into consideration that the respondent-workman submitted specific application specifying the dates on which he worked on weekly rest and application was duly received by the respondent, however, no order for denying such benefits or for controverting the factual position with regard to working of the respondent was passed by the petitioner-Corporation. 9. Under these circumstances, where the Court below has passed the impugned order on the basis of evidence on record and factual finding has been arrived at, no interference whatsoever is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/4