1993 Supreme(Raj) 491
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURt
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Ajmer - Appellant
Versus
Labour Court and Anr. - Respondent
S.B.C. W.P. Nos. 1411, 1415 and 2492 of 1987.
Decided On : 11-03-1993
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:R.C. Joshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Virendra Bandhu, Advocate.
A settlement that is contrary to the mandatory provisions of a statute cannot be binding on the workmen, and the workmen are entitled to the benefits provided under the statute.
Headnote:
FACTORIES ACT, 1948 - SECTION 59 - OVERTIME WAGES - SETTLEMENT - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 64(4)(IV) - MAXIMUM OVERTIME HOURS - VIOLATION - EFFECT - DEDUCTION OF BENEFITS ALREADY EARNED UNDER SETTLEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Employees filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming overtime wages in terms of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948. The company contested, relying on a settlement dated March 31, 1977, which provided for Sunday allowance on HMT pattern. The Labour Court directed payment of overtime wages to each workman in accordance with Section 59 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court's finding that the settlement was partially contrary to Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, and that the workmen were entitled to payment of overtime wages for the entire overtime work was upheld. However, the finding that the workmen could not be asked to account for the benefits already availed by them under the settlement was set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the settlement dated March 31, 1977, was contrary to Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948? 2. Whether the workmen were entitled to payment of overtime wages for the entire overtime work? 3. Whether the workmen could be asked to account for the benefits already availed by them under the settlement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The settlement was contrary to Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, as it provided for benefits that were less advantageous to the workers than those provided under the Act. 2. The workmen were entitled to payment of overtime wages for the entire overtime work, as the employer had violated the mandatory provisions of Section 59 of the Act by making them work for more than 50 hours of overtime. 3. The workmen could be asked to account for the benefits already availed by them under the settlement, as they could not be allowed to take double benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were decided as follows: 1. The finding of the Labour Court that the settlement dated March 31, 1977, was partially contrary to Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, was upheld. 2. The finding of the Labour Court that the workmen were entitled to payment of overtime wages for the entire overtime work was also upheld. 3. The finding of the Labour Court that the workmen could not be asked to account for the benefits already availed by them was, however, set aside. The cases were remanded back to the Labour Court for recomputation of the benefits admissible to the workmen towards overtime wages by accounting for the benefits already taken by them under the settlement dated March 31, 1977.
JUDGMENT
1. - These three petitions arise out of a common order dated January 5, 1987 passed by the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur in case No. LCC 35/85, Case No. LCC 124/85, Case No. LCC 125/85 filed by 71 employees claiming overtime wages in terms of the Factories Act, 1948. Since the Labour Court has decided all the three applications by the common order and facts of all these writ petitions are by and large common, I am deciding all these writ petitions by a common order.
2. The facts which are necessary for deciding controversy involved in these writ petitions are that the petitioner Hindustan Machine Tools is a company owned and controlled by the Government of India. It has its factories at various places in India as well as abroad. One of its factories is at Ajmer which is engaged in manufacture of machine tools. This factory is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 1948 Act). The respondent - workmen filed three separate applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 1947 Act) claiming computation of their overtime wages in terms of Section 59 of 1948 Act. The workman claimed that they had worked overtime and the company was under an obligation to pay overtime wages in accordance with Section 59 of 1948 Act but the company had deliberately denied those wages to the workmen on the basis of tripartite settlement dated March 31, 1977. The petitioner contested these applications and claimed that payment of overtime to the workmen is regulated by the provisions contained in the Tripartite settlement dated 31st March, 1977. Settlement was arrived at between the management of the Company and representatives of the HMT Shramik Sangh, Ajmer and HMT Employees Union, Ajmer. The Regional Assistant Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer had witnessed the settlement. The company claimed that in the terms of Para-21 of the settlement, the workmen were entitled to Sunday allowance on H.M.T. pattern. The HMT pattern has been provided in Clause 2.242 of the Personnel Manual of HMT Bangalore.
3. After hearing the parties, learned Judge, Labour Court has accepted the applications filed by the workmen and directed payment of overtime wages to each of the workmen in accordance with Section 59 of 1948 Act. The Labour Court also computed the amount payable to each of the workmen towards overtime wages.
4. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner company, has argued that the findings recorded by the Labour Court about the entitlement of the workmen to overtime wages under Section 59 of 1948 Act are perverse in as much as the Labour Court has completely over-looked various important aspects of the case. Shri Joshi submitted that the settlement dated 31st March, 77 will occupy the field regarding overtime wages and once the employer and employees have voluntarily entered into a settlement, provisions of Section 59 of 1948 Act cannot be relied upon for claiming overtime wages. Shri Joshi submitted that the Labour Court has completely ignored the fact that all the workmen have derived benefits from the settlement dated, 31st March, 1977 for sufficiently long period and therefore, it was not justified for the Labour Court to have unsettled the service conditions of the employees. Shri Joshi further argued that the Management of the Company has acted upon the settlement for the last more than a decade and a half and about 1100 employees belonging to the Unions have been given benefit of overtime wages/Sunday allowance in accordance with the terms of settlement. Now, on the basis of the order passed by the Labour Court on the applications filed by few employees a situation has come into existence where the management will have to operate the settlement for some employees and will have to pay overtime wages to the respondents under Section 59 of 1948 Act. Shri Joshi then argued that once the workmen have availed the benefits under the settlement they cannot be allowed to again make
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
