<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1984 (3) TMI 423 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174288</link>
    <description>Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act was construed to extend the Factories Act to all persons employed in and in connection with a factory, so factory employees could claim overtime wages under section 59 even if they were not &quot;workers&quot; under the Factories Act. The non-obstante clause in section 70 was treated as overriding contrary exemption provisions in section 64 of the Factories Act and Rule 100, so those provisions could not defeat the overtime entitlement. On the evidence, the respondents other than Senior Supervisors and Supervisors were also treated as workmen for section 33C(2) purposes, and their claim was maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 20:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 423 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174288</link>
      <description>Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act was construed to extend the Factories Act to all persons employed in and in connection with a factory, so factory employees could claim overtime wages under section 59 even if they were not &quot;workers&quot; under the Factories Act. The non-obstante clause in section 70 was treated as overriding contrary exemption provisions in section 64 of the Factories Act and Rule 100, so those provisions could not defeat the overtime entitlement. On the evidence, the respondents other than Senior Supervisors and Supervisors were also treated as workmen for section 33C(2) purposes, and their claim was maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>