Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Vijay D. Kasbe and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2911-2920 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 1891-1900 of 2019
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Factories Act, 1948 – Section 59(1) and Proviso to Section 64(1) – Constitution of India – Article 309 – Double Over Time Allowance – Entitlement – Claim of respondents arose at the time when they were Central Government servants – Their claim should be considered to have arisen only in relation to service matters of persons appointed to a service in connection with affairs of Union or in relation to holders of civil post – Primarily, terms and conditions of service of persons in civil services of Union or State and persons holding civil posts under Union or State, are regulated either by Acts of appropriate Legislature passed in terms of Article 309 of Constitution – Appointment either to a civil post or in civil services of Union or State, is one of a status – It is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309 or its proviso – No benefit can be claimed by anyone de hors statutory rules – Respondents are required to perform manual labour or clerical work as a regular part of their duties – Provisions of Payment of Wages Act, were not applicable to respondents and as a sequitur, Proviso to Section 64(1) of 1948 Act cannot be pressed into service – Impugned order of High Court set aside – However, appellants not to effect any recovery from those to whom payments have already been made. (Paras 16, 20, 21, 25, 32, 39 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Only question which falls for consideration is as to whether persons employed as Supervisors are entitled or not, to Double Over Time Allowance in terms of Section 59(1) of 1948 Act?
Findings of Court:
Tribunal as well as High Court did not consider distinction between persons in Government service and those in private service and the effect of statutory rules upon conditions of service of respondents, including their liability to work for extra hours; (ii) that Tribunal reached diametrically opposite findings of fact in respect of persons holding similar supervisory posts and (iii) that therefore, orders of Tribunal and High Court are unsustainable.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenging a common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a batch of writ petitions affirming an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, holding that even those employees working as Supervisors are entitled to Double Over Time Allowance, the Management of the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India1 [for short “Corporation”] and others have come up with these appeals.
3. We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri R.K. Adsure, Shri K. Parameswar and Shri S.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The case on hand has a checkered history with fortunes fluctuating from one side to the other. To the extent necessary, we shall now trace the history as follows:
(ii) The transfer of management automatically led to the transfer of the workforce and along with the assets and liabilities of the nine production units, the Corporation also inherited some litigation, including the one on hand.
(iii) Way back in the year 1988, an order dated 21.12.1988 was issued by the Special Officer (Currency and Coinage), Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, directing that the shop-floor and the ministerial staff, falling under the category of non-gazetted supervisory staff of the Presses and Security Paper Mill would be compensated for extended hours of work at certain rates. The order indicated that the category of staff mentioned therein would be entitled to a special allowance to be paid in lieu of overtime allowance, at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month for working of 9 hours and at the rates of Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 1,400/- per month for working of 10 hours and 11 hours respectively.
(iv) By a subsequent order issued by the Government of India on 11.4.2000, it was clarified that the staff whose basic pay exceeded the ceiling limit of Rs. 2,200/- per month in the pre-revised scales of pay, will not be entitled to any overtime allowance.
(v) In the year 1988, a group of eight persons working as Supervisors, Works Engineer, Section Officer, etc. in the Currency Note Press, Nashik, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3150 of 1988, claiming overtime allowance. The writ petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1995. It was tagged along with a few original applications directly filed before the Tribunal and by a common order dated 25.7.1997, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed all the applications, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with a claim relating to overtime allowance arising under the Factories Act, 19482 [for short “1948 Act”].
(vi) Challenging the said order of the Tribunal dated 25.7.1997, a few writ petitions came to be filed on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. During the pendency of the writ petitions, one more group of supervisory employees (A.K. Biswas and Others) filed an application in O.A. No. 26 of 2000 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the same reliefs. This application was also
(1) No benefit can be claimed by anyone de hors statutory rules.(2) Persons employed as Supervisors are not entitled to Double Over Time Allowance in terms of Section 59(1) of the 1948 Act.
The court established that individuals classified as supervisors under the Factories Act are not entitled to overtime benefits as defined for workers, impacting their claims for such allowances.
Compensatory allowances cannot be excluded from calculating overtime wages under section 59(2) of the Factories Act, as executive directives cannot alter statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the definition of a 'workman' and the requirement for follow....
A railway employee is entitled to overtime only if actual hours worked exceed legal limits defined by statutory rules.
The classification of provisional service does not qualify for pension benefits under the applicable government rules and existing case law.
Special Allowance cannot be a part of the component of “ordinary rate of wages”, as it is a separate allowance, which is not given to all workmen, but only given to a certain category of workmen, hav....
The designation of an employee does not determine their status as a workman; rather, the dominant nature of their work is the key criterion under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Cabinmen classified as 'Continuous' under railway rules, entitled to OTA for work beyond 8 hours daily.
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, permits recovery of money only if the entitlement is pre-existing and previously adjudicated; employees must demonstrate a pre-existing right and....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
