Employees of the Fire Brigade Department are not entitled to overtime wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as they receive higher wages and had opted for shifts with benefits.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. ADMIT. Learned Advocate Mr. P.C. Chaudhary waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition filed by the appellant – Surat Municipal Corporation rejecting the writ petition assailing the judgment and order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference (IT) No.75 of 2003.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The respondent–Sudhrai Majdoor Union (Lal Vatva) raised a demand to commence 8-8-8 hour shift in the Fire Brigade Department and to be paid overtime wages for 4 hours by claiming that its members-the employees worked for 12 hours from 14.04.2001. The members of the respondent Union are working in the Fire Brigade Department in the appellant- Corporation on the post of Security Guard, Security Officer, Jamadar, Driver, Fireman etc. The Fire Brigade Department is considered as an emergency department and hence, the employees working in the said Department are duty bound to render their services for 24 hours in different shifts.

4. It is the case of the appellant that for the first time, the Union raised the demand for fixing 8 hours shift instead of 24 hours, and also for payment of longer duty allowance of Rs. 60/- for the employees and Rs.120/- for the officers as they had to remain on 24 hours duty. The same culminated into Reference (IT) No.98 of 1989. A settlement was arrived at between the Union and the Corporation on 24.10.1989, and Corporation agreed to pay the special pay. The settlement refers that both the demands are consolidated and special pay of Rs.400/-, Rs.350/- and Rs.325/- in case of different categories of employees/officers working for 24 hours was decided to be paid. Accordingly, the Reference (IT) No.98 of 1989 was withdrawn. The settlement was duly approved by the appellant-Corporation.

5. On 30.10.1993, the Union again raised a grievance about working hours of the employees in the Fire Department. It was insisted that the same may be kept at 8 hours and accordingly, the Standing Committee of the Corporation passed a Resolution No.1597 deciding to offer an option to the employee-workman in the Fire Department either to opt for duty of 24 hours or 8 hours duty with a rider in the event that they opt for duty for 24 hours, they would be given special allowances, rent free quarter, exemption from paying electricity bill and also to grant safety kits every year. It is not disputed that none of the employees opted for 8 hours duty, but opted for 24 hours duty with all the benefits.

6. In the year 1999, on 08.07.1999, the respondent Union again persisted in their demand for changing the existing system of 24 hours of duty for the employees engaged in the Fire Department. It is the case of the Corporation that while considering the proposal dated 08.07.1999 of the Municipal Commissioner and also the rights of various Unions, including the respondent-Union, on 13.01.2000, unanimously resolved and passed a Resolution No.68 resolving that employees working in the Fire Department of the appellant-Corporation will have 12 hours shift. The said Resolution was approved by the Joint Body of the appellant-Corporation on 22.02.2000 vide its Resolution No.19. Accordingly, the appellant- Corporation passed an order on 07.04.2001 commencing shift of 12 hours in the Fire Department with effect from 14.04.2001.

7. On 11.09.2002, the respondent-Union raised a demand to alter the practice of working hours for 12-12 hours shift to 8- 8-8 hours shift and the employees should be paid overtime wages for 4 hours with effect from 14.04.2001. The said dispute culminated into Reference (IT) No.75 of 2003 and which has been decided by the final Award dated 09.11.2017.

8. It is the case of the appellant that during the pendency of the Reference proceedings, a joint decision was taken by the Union and the appellant-Corpor