1. Dispute over entitlement of supervisory staff to double overtime allowance under Section 59(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, during their tenure as government servants. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 378
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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.
(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.
Subject
Employment Law - Overtime Pay
Act Referred
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT: S.3(q)
BOMBAY SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT: S.70
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.227, Art.136, Art.309, Art.313
FACTORIES ACT: S.59(1), S.2(m), S.64(1)
FUNDAMENTAL RULES: R.11
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.2(s)
MAHARASHTRA FACTORIES RULES: R.100, R.100(1)
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT: S.1(6)
BOMBAY SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT: S.70
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.227, Art.136, Art.309, Art.313
FACTORIES ACT: S.59(1), S.2(m), S.64(1)
FUNDAMENTAL RULES: R.11
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.2(s)
MAHARASHTRA FACTORIES RULES: R.100, R.100(1)
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT: S.1(6)
Headnote
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- labour law
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Rohan Darade, Adv. Mr. Lav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar D. Bhelkar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Rohan Darade, Adv. Mr. Lav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar D. Bhelkar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether supervisors performing incidental clerical work qualify as workers under the Factories Act and if Rule 100 of Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963, excludes them. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Civil servants are governed by statutory rules under Article 309 and Fundamental Rules, which place their full time at government disposal without additional remuneration. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 32 , 33 )
4. Holders of civil posts in government service cannot claim benefits under labour welfare legislation, such as the Factories Act, independent of their statutory service rules. (Para 25 , 34 )
5. Appeals allowed and impugned order set aside, with directions not to effect recovery from employees who already received payments. (Para 41 )
6. Are government servants holding civil posts entitled to benefits under labour welfare legislation like the Factories Act?
No. Such employment is a status governed by statute or statutory rules under Article 309 and Fundamental Rules. Under Rule 11 of the Fundamental Rules, a government servant's whole time is at the disposal of the government without claim for additional remuneration. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 34 )
7. When are supervisors excluded from overtime provisions under Rule 100 of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963?
Supervisors are deemed to hold positions of supervision or management and are exempted from Chapter VI of the Factories Act, provided they are not required to perform manual labour or clerical work as a regular part of their duties. (Para 7 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
8. Is the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, identical to worker under the Factories Act, 1948?
No. The Industrial Disputes Act specifically excludes persons employed in a supervisory capacity who meet certain wage or managerial criteria, whereas the Factories Act's definition of worker does not contain such a specific exclusion. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )
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:
(i) Till the year 2005, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India had nine production units namely, four India Government Mints, two Currency Note Presses, two Security Printing Presses and one Security Paper Mill under its control. In the year 2006, a wholly owned Company under the name and style of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd. was incorporated on 13.1.2006, for the purpose of taking over the management, control, maintenance and operations of those nine production units which were functioning under the Currency and Coinage Division of the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The transfer actually took place with effect from 10.2.2006.
(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 dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 19.1.2001 following the order passed on 25.7.1997 in the other
