1984 (3) TMI 423 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms double overtime wages entitlement under Factories Act

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Versus G.M. KOKIL AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the respondents' entitlement to overtime wages at twice the normal rate under s. 59 of the Factories Act ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to overtime wages u/s 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.2. Applicability of Rule 100 framed u/s 64 of the Factories Act.3. Status of respondents as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Summary:1. Entitlement to Overtime Wages:The primary issue was whether the respondents, employees of the India Security Press, Nasik, were entitled to overtime wages at twice the normal rate u/s 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The Supreme Court held that the question of proper construction of s. 70 was already concluded by a previous decision in Shri B.P. Hira v. Shri C.M. Pradhan. The Court reiterated that s. 70, with its non-obstante clause, enlarged the scope of the Factories Act to apply to all persons employed in a factory, irrespective of whether they were 'workers' under s. 2(i) of the Factories Act. Thus, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of s. 59.2. Applicability of Rule 100:The appellants contended that even if the respondents were entitled to claim the benefit of s. 59, Rule 100 framed u/s 64 of the Factories Act exempted certain categories of employees from this benefit. The Supreme Court, however, held that the non-obstante clause in s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act had the effect of excluding the operation of the exemption provisions, including s. 64 and Rule 100. Therefore, the respondents were entitled to claim overtime wages under s. 59 read with s. 70.3. Status as 'Workmen':The appellants argued that the respondents were not 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus their application u/s 33C(2) was not maintainable. The Labour Court, upon appreciating the evidence, concluded that all respondents, except those holding the posts of Senior Supervisors and Supervisors, were 'workmen' and entitled to the relief claimed. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating it was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and could not be interfered with.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondents' entitlement to overtime wages at twice the normal rate under s. 59 of the Factories Act read with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The Court also upheld the Labour Court's finding that the respondents, except Senior Supervisors and Supervisors, were 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act. No order as to costs was made.