Back
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA
NRIPENDRA NARAYAN SINHA - Appellant
Versus
JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RANCHI - Respondents
W. P. 7200 Of 2005
Decided On : 05/05/2006
Overtime Work - Payment Dispute - Factories Act 1948, Section 59 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act 1948, which entitles workers to overtime wages at twice the ordinary rate of wages for working beyond prescribed hours. The court also considered the circulars issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board, which restricted overtime work beyond 50 hours per quarter and outlined penalties for violations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought payment for overtime work performed as an assistant Controller at the State Electricity Board. The Board rejected part of the claim based on limitations for overtime work. The petitioner challenged the decision, seeking payment for the actual hours worked.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to payment for the actual hours of overtime work performed, as the respondents did not dispute the hours claimed. The impugned order rejecting part of the claim was set aside, and the case was remitted to the respondents with directions for payment and disciplinary action against officers deviating from the Board's instructions.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of part of the petitioner's claim for overtime payment, the limitations on overtime work imposed by the Bihar State Electricity Board, and the violation of provisions of the Factories Act 1948.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to payment for actual hours of overtime work and directed the respondents to pay the remaining dues. It also emphasized the need for disciplinary action against officers deviating from the Board's instructions and highlighted the recoverability of irregular overtime payments from the erring officers.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case to the respondents with directions for payment and disciplinary action. The petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 5,000.
S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order, contained in Memo no, 2673 dated December 2, 2004, issued by the 5th respondent, General Manager-cum-Chief engineer, Transmission Zone-1, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, claim of the petitioner for payment of dues for performing overtime work has been partly rejected on the ground that there is a limitation to take overtime work for more than 50 hours in a quarter of a particular year or maximum 150 hours in the concerned financial year, as per the Boards circular.
( 2 ) FURTHER prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to prosecute the concerned 2nd to 5th respondents for violating the provisions of Factories Act 1948, in terms with the provisions of Sections 92 and 105 of the Factories Act, 1948.
( 3 ) THE petitioner, who was posted as assistant Controller, Transmission Sub-Division, Jadugora, while performing the duties as such, the State Electricity Board took overtime work on different dates in between january, 1994 and December, 2001 but did not pay him the overtime dues. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had to move before this Court in wp (S) No. 127 of 2002 for a direction on the electricity Board to pay him the amount for taking overtime work. A Bench of this Court vide order dated January 7, 2002 remitted the case to the General Manager-cum-Chief engineer, Area Electricity Board, to determine the claim but decision having not been communicated, the petitioner had to prefer a contempt petition. In the contempt case being contempt Case (C) No. 382 of 2002, the opposite parties brought to the notice of the court a decision communicated vide Impugned memo No. 2673 dated December 2, 2004 and having noticed the same, this Court dropped the proceeding on December 3, 2004. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner had to challenge the impugned order No. 2673 dated december 2, 2004, whereby, part prayer for payment of overtime dues has been rejected and the respondents have allowed and paid the overtime only to the extent of 50 hours per quarter.
( 4 ) THE petitioner claims the following hours of overtime work beyond the normal working hours, as was taken by the respondents for managing the control room where the petitioner was posted;
Year
Month
Sanctioned over time hours
1994
January
160
1994
August
192
1994
October
224
1994
April
48
1994
May
192
1994
June
176
1995
July
48
1995
September
72
1995
October
112
1995
December
112
1995
January
104
1995
February
88
1995
March
72
1996
June
88
1996
July
152
1996
August
152
1996
September
152
1996
October
160
1996
November
96
1996
December
176
1996
January
88
1996
February
112
1996
March
128
1996
April
240
1996
May
248
1997
June
168
1997
July
200
1997
August
200
1997
September
200
1997
October
232
1997
November
216
1997
December
160
1997
January
240
1997
February
232
1997
March
168
1997
April
200
1997
May
200
1997
June
144
1998
July
40
1998
August
200
1998
September
240
1998
October
264
1998
November
248
1998
December
160
1999
January
176
1999
February
176
1999
March
184
1999
April
40
1999
October
40
1999
November
40
1999
December
12
1999
January
40
1999
February
32
1999
March
8
1999
April
24
2000
May
8
2000
July
16
2000
August
16
2000
October
16
2000
November
40
2000
December
40
2000
January
32
2000
February
32
2000
April
248
2000
May
8
2000
June
8
2001
July
32
2001
August
32
2001
September
16
2001
October
48
2001
November
56
( 5 ) THE respondents, have not disputed the aforesaid fact that the overtime work to the extent of 8 to 224 hours in a month was also taken from the petitioner In fact, the overtime work for different months, as given by the petitioner, has not been disputed and from the impugned order, it appears that the then general Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Area electric Supply, also accepted the same and has ordered to make payment, which is evident from the impugned order No. 2673 dated december 2, 2004, as quoted hereunder:"it appe
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
