Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
The Vyavasthapak Murliwala Agro. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156 of 2007, CCOCR No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 23-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Harish Purohit, Vinod Choudhary, Narpat Rajpurohit
For the Respondent: Pankaj Sharma
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.
Headnote:
(A) Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Sections 1(6), 2(vi), 15(2), and 16 - Overtime wages claim - Petitioners claimed overtime wages for work done beyond 8 hours, asserting entitlement under the Act - Authority ruled in favor of petitioners, but Appellate Court set aside the decision citing lack of overtime contract and exceeding wage ceiling - Court found that overtime is included in the definition of wages and that the Appellate Court erred in its interpretation of the law. (Paras 2, 7, 12, 14, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction of Appellate Court - Appellate Court must adhere to statutory provisions and cannot act contrary to law or ignore the Authority's findings. (Paras 14, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, employed as workers, claimed overtime wages for work exceeding 8 hours per day, which was denied by the Appellate Court on grounds of lack of contract and exceeding wage limits. (Paras 4, 7)
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court's judgment was set aside, affirming the Authority's decision that petitioners were entitled to overtime wages as per statutory provisions. (Paras 19, 20)
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to overtime wages despite the absence of a specific contract and the wage ceiling provisions. (Paras 7, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of wages under the Act includes overtime payments, and the Appellate Court's reasoning was inconsistent with statutory provisions protecting workers' rights. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: Civil revision allowed, Appellate Court's judgment set aside.
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 the petitioners were entitled for overtime of 4 hours, which would be double the amount payable for 8 hours work.
5. The respondent contested the claim of the petitioners by asserting that the petitioners were not engaged by the factory ever. Rather they were working with contractor-Ramswaroop and Ramswaroop had engaged them for work of the factory and only Ramswaroop knows that which of the petitioner did work on which date and for what hour. Moreover, there was no agreement for overtime payment hence, the petitioners cannot claim wages for overtime.
6. The authority under the Act found that in Case No.68/1999, the Civil Court, Mavli had held that the petitioners were regular worker of the respondent, as such, they were entitled for payment of wages for overtime work done by them. The aforesaid judgment got finality hence, the Authority took the view that the petitioners were regular worker of the respondent. Moreover, the petitioners had produced some of the registers and provident fund receipts as well as identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance Company to support that they were regular worker of the respondent. The petitioners had filed application before the Authority asking the respondent to produce certain documents in possession of the respondent, which would prove the claim of the petitioners to be regular wager of the respondent, but the respondent did not produce the same, hence, adverse inference was drawn.
7. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal on two grounds, first that payment of overtime was not part of the service contract and second that since the wages claimed by the petitioners exceeded the ceiling of Rs.1600/- as provided under Section 1(6) of the said Act, hence, the claim cannot be allowed.
8. Mr. Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the definition of “wages” under Section 2(vi) of the Act, the overtime work done and the wages payable is also covered under the definition of the wages. Hence, the Appellate Court erred in law in going against the mandate of law and acting on conjectures and surmises that there was no contract between the parties for overtime.
9. Learned counsel contends that it was established by evidence that the petitioners and others were working in two shifts in a day and each shift was divided by 12 hours.
10. Learned counsel contends that under Section 48 of the Factories Act, if the worker works in a factory for more than 48 hours in any week, then he shall be entitled to receive the wages on the head “overtime”.
11. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent contends that it was burden of the petitioners to prove the facts pleaded and they cannot claim benefit of the weakness of the case of the respondent. Even if the respondent had not produced any d
