1984 (3) TMI 423 - SC - Indian Laws

S.2(1) limited to four 'workers', but s.70 applies Factories Act; all employees get double overtime under s.59 read with s.70

SC dismissed the appeal and upheld the Authority and Labour Court: although only four employees qualified as 'workers' under s.2(1), the non-obstante ... Extra wages for overtime - Application of Factories Act to all persons employed in or in connection with a factory - Non-obstante clause - Exemption power under s.64 and Rule 100 - Industrial employee / workman under the Industrial Disputes ActExtra wages for overtime - Application of Factories Act to all persons employed in or in connection with a factory - Non-obstante clause - Whether persons employed in a factory who are not 'workers' within the meaning of the Factories Act are nevertheless entitled to claim overtime at twice the ordinary rate under section 59 when section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act applies. - HELD THAT: - Section 70 operates in two parts: it excludes a factory from the Shops and Establishments Act and, by a non-obstante clause, makes the provisions of the Factories Act applicable to 'all persons employed in or in connection with a factory.' The non-obstante language thereby enlarges the scope of the Factories Act so that entitlement under s.59 is available to persons employed in the factory irrespective of whether they fall within the statutory definition of 'worker' in s.2(1). The Court applied and followed the earlier decision in B.P. Hira v. C.M. Pradhan [reported decision] which construed s.70 to permit employees who are not 'workers' to claim overtime under s.59 when the section is made operative by s.70. The present respondents, though not all strictly 'workers' under s.2(1), are therefore entitled to the protection of s.59 by virtue of s.70.Respondents employed in the factory are entitled to claim overtime under s.59 by reason of s.70 even if they are not 'workers' within the meaning of the Factories Act.Exemption power under s.64 and Rule 100 - Non-obstante clause - Whether Rule 100 framed under s.64 (exempting specified supervisory or managerial categories) operates to deny the benefit of s.59 to persons employed in a factory when section 70 applies. - HELD THAT: - Section 70's non-obstante clause - 'notwithstanding anything contained in that Act' - must be read as having overriding effect over contrary provisions within the Factories Act. The exemption mechanism under s.64 and Rule 100 is contrary to the general applicability effected by s.70; consequently s.64 read with Rule 100 does not defeat the entitlement created by s.70 for persons employed in a factory. The Court acknowledged the practical consequence that managerial or supervisory officers might thus be brought within s.59, but held that that effect is for the State Legislature to address and, in any event, the earlier decision in B.P. Hira supports this construction.Rule 100 framed under s.64 does not exclude from s.59 those persons employed in a factory to whom s.70 makes the Factories Act applicable.Industrial employee / workman under the Industrial Disputes Act - Whether the Labour Court's factual finding that specified respondents (excluding Senior Supervisors and Supervisors) are industrial employees/workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act is liable to be disturbed. - HELD THAT: - The determination of who is an industrial employee under the Industrial Disputes Act turned on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence concerning duties and functions. The Labour Court found that the posts of Chief Inspectors (Control), Inspectors (Control), Junior Supervisors and Store Keeper (as identified) amounted to industrial employees, while Senior Supervisors and Supervisors did not, and denied relief to the latter only for periods they held those posts. This Court refused to reappraise or disturb the Labour Court's concurrent factual conclusions, and on examination of material reproduced in the record found no ground to interfere.The Labour Court's finding that the majority of the respondents (other than those holding Senior Supervisor and Supervisor posts) are industrial employees/workmen is upheld.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act renders the Factories Act (including s.59) applicable to all persons employed in or in connection with a factory notwithstanding the exemptions under s.64 and Rule 100; the Labour Court's factual finding that the bulk of the respondents are industrial employees is sustained, and those respondents are entitled to overtime under s.59 as held below. 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.