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

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

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 ... Entitlement to overtime wages - scope of the Factories Act to apply to all persons employed in a factory - Whether the respondents who are employees working in the Factory of India Security Press, Nasik are entitled to over-time wages at twice the normal rate of their wages under s. 59 of the Factories Act 1948 read with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - HELD THAT:- The validity of the claim on both the grounds was disputed by the appellant (Works Manager). The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act found that only four of the respondents, who were required to do the work of progress time-keeper, could claim the status of 'workers' within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act and the rest were merely employees of the workshop, but accepted the alternative case 'made by the respondents and held that each of the respondents was entitled to get the over-time wages under sec. 59 read with sec. 70 and this Court upheld the view of the Authority and confirmed its decision. Section 70, so far as is relevant, says 'the provisions of the Factories Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Act, apply to all persons employed in and in connection with a factory'. It is well-known that a non- obstnte clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give over-riding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. Thus the non-obstante clause in s. 70, namely, 'notwithstanding anything in that Act' must mean notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in that Act and as such it must refer to the exempting provisions which would be contrary to the general applicability of the Act. In other words, as all the relevant provisions of the Act are made applicable to a factory notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in it, it must have the effect of excluding the operation of the exemption provisions. Just as because of the non-obstante clause the Act is applicable even to employees in the factory who might not be 'workers' under sec. 2(1), the same non-obstante clause will keep away the applicability of exemption provisions qua all those working in the factory. The Labour Court, in our view, was, therefore, right in taking the view that because of the non-obstante clause s. 64 read with Rule 100 itself would not apply to the respondents and they would be entitled to claim overtime wages under s. 59 of that Act read with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. Appeal dismissed. 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.