Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR, J
Vyavasthapak Murliwala Agro. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. A brief background leading to this civil revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is that the petitioners jointly moved an application before the “Authority” on 15.07.1999 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (the Act) claiming wages for overtime work done by them in view of the provisions under Section 15(2) read with 16 of the said Act. The said petition was registered as PW-38 of 99 (ALC) and by judgment dated 31.03.2006, prayer of the petitioners was allowed.
3. The said order was challenged in appeal under Section 17 of the said Act before the Civil Court and by the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.44/2006, the learned District Judge, Udaipur set aside the judgment of the Authority.
4. The case and claim of the petitioners is that they were employed as wagers with respondent factory M/s Murliwala Agrotek Limited for the period 01.07.1998 to 30.06.1999. The petitioners asserted that petitioner-Bhagwati Lal was getting Rs.1466/- for 12 hours work and other petitioners were getting Rs.1250/- for their 12 hours work. As per law, the employer could take 8 hours work only. Hence, the aforesaid wage was for 8 hours work and t
Overtime wages are included in the definition of wages under the Payment of Wages Act, and the Appellate Court erred in denying the claim based on contract absence and wage ceiling.
The judgment established the pre-existing right of employees to overtime wages under statutory provisions and recognized the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate disputes over such entitlem....
The entitlement to overtime wages is established based on prior sanction and does not necessitate fresh adjudication under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
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 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.
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.
The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to interpret awards without prior recourse to designated labor tribunals under S.36A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
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
