Back
1991 Supreme(MP) 13
1991 JLJ 241
Faizan Uddin and K.L. Issrani, JJ.
General Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas v. Chhattar Singh and others
M.P. No. 2483 of 1986; against the order passed by presiding officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, in case No. CGIT/LC(C) (159) of 1985;
Decided on 8.1.1991.
Anoop Choudhary for petitioner; P.S. Nair for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 --- Ss. 2(j) and 2(n)(vi) --- Bank Note Press --- is an Industry in view of the declaration of Central Government in pursuance of S. 2(n)(vi). M.P. No. 80 of 1978 relied on. [Para 6
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 --- S. 2(s) --- workmen of Bank Note Press --- are workmen as defined in this provision. M.P. No. 80 of 1978 relied on. [Para 6
(3) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 --- S. 2(j) --- definition of ‘Industry‘ under --- does not expressly exclude the Government undertaking established in exercise of sovereign functions --- consideration as to who conducts an activity which falls within the definition of ‘Industry‘ is irrelevant. 1979 JLJ 562 relied on. [Para 7
(4) Factories Act, 1948 --- Ss. 59, 2(1) and 64 --- M.P. Factories Rules, 1962 --- R. 97 --- M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 --- S. 62 --- non-obstante clause in S. 62 of M.P. Act --- makes the provisions of Factories Act fully applicable to the ‘Workers‘ of Bank Note Press --- such workers are entitled to claim overtime wages at twice rate under S. 59 of the Factories Act. AIR 1984 SC 1022 followed. 1979 JLJ 559 and LPA No. 59 of 1985 relied on. [Paras 10 and 12
(5) Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 (M.P.) --- Ss. 2(8), 2(9), 3 and 62 --- application of 62 is neither curtailed or limited by S. 3 --- word ‘establishment‘ as defined in S. 2(8) --- does not include ‘factory‘ being separately defined in 5. 2(9), AIR 1959 SC 1226 followed. [Para 13
¼1½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 2¼´½ ,oa 2¼<½¼Ng½ && cSad uksV izsl && dsanzh; ljdkj }kjk /kkjk 2¼<½¼Ng½ ds vuqlj.k esa dh xbZ ?kks"k.kk ds vuqlkj ,d ^^m|ksx** gSA ,e ih Ø- 80@1978 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼2½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 2¼/k½ && cSad uksV izsl ds deZdkj && bl mica/k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr deZdkj gSaA ,e ih Ø- 80@1978 vyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼3½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 2¼´½ && ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk && izHkqRo laiUu d`R;ksa ds iz;ksx esa LFkkfir ljdkjh miØe dks Li"Vr% vioftZr ugha djrh && ;g fopkj fd;k tkuk fd ,sls dk;Zdyki dk lapkyu tks ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS] dkSu djrk gS] vlaxr gSA 1979 ts ,y ts 562 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 7
¼4½ dkj[kkuk vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 59] 2¼B½ ,oa 64 && e-iz- dkj[kkuk fu;e] 1962 && fu- 97 && e-iz- nqdku ,oa LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1958 && /kkjk 62 && e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 62 esa loksZifj [kaM && cSad uksV izsl ds deZdkjksa dks dkj[kkuk vf/kfu;e ds mica/k iw.kZr;k ykxw djrk gS && ,sls deZdkj dkj[kkuk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 59 ds v/khu vfrdky etnwjh nwuh nj ls nkok djus ds gdnkj gSaA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1022 vuqlfjrA 1979 ts ,y ts 559 ,oa ,y ih , Ø- 59@1985 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10 ,oa 12
¼5½ nqdku ,oa LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1958 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼8½] 2¼9½] 3 ,oa 62 && /kkjk 3 }kjk /kkjk 62 dk ykxw gksuk u rks de fd;k x;k gS vkSj u lhfer gh fd;k xk gS && /kkjk 2¼8½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ‘‘kCn ^^LFkkiuk** && /kkjk 2¼9½ esa i`Fkd :i ls ifjHkkf"kr gksus ls ^dkj[kkuk* dks lfEefyr ugha djrkA , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 1226 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 13
Faizan Uddin. J. -- 1. The Order passed in this petition will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 3399/86 (General Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas v. M. Shariff and 22 others) as well as Misc. Petition No. 3509 of 1986 (General Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas v. Awatar Singh and 131 others), as in all these petitions, filed by the Bank Note Press, Dewas, common questions of law and facts arise.
2. In all these 3 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the management of the Bank Note Press, Dewas, has challenged the common order dated 21st May, 1986 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, allowing the applications of the respondents in 3 petitions, filed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, granting their claim for overtime wages at double the normal rate of their wages. These 3 applications were registered by the Tribunal as Applications No. 135/85, 136/85 and 159/85.
3. The case of the respondents in brief was that Bank Note Press, Dewas is a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948, which is engaged, amongst other, in the production of the Bank notes and ink which are supplied to the Reserve Bank of India and the security ink is given to various presses. Bank Note Press, Dewas is doing commercial business by earning profit. The factory has various sections, such as control, printing, plate making, stores, work shop, ink factory, dispensary, estate and administrative sections, where the employees are required to work overtime to meet the rising demand of the Reserve Bank of India. It has been averred that services of every employee are complimentary and necessary for the proper and effective functioning of the factory and its production and, therefore, there could be no valid separation of the staff in industrial and non-industrial workers for purposes of payment of over-time wages. Out of the 3 applications filed under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Application No. 135/85 was by the employees of the Management, who are clerks, stenographers, section officers, deputy accountants; lower division clerks, typists, office peons, guest-house attendants, nurses, malis and estate custodian, etc. In case No. 136/85, the employees are store keepers, deputy works engineers, control inspectors and deputy technical officers, etc., some of whom are getting wages more than Rs.650/- per month. In case No. 159/85 the employees are inspector control. All the employees in the 3 petitions were being paid overtime at the single rate either because they are treated to be supervisory or managerial cadre or because they are getting more than Rs.650/- per month, while others including the head time keepers are paid overtime at double the rate. The respondents claim that since they are workmen as defined under section 2(s) of the Act, they are entitled to over-time wages at double the rate under section 59 of the Factories Act as are admissible to all other workers.
4. The petitioner resisted the claim of the respondents before the Tribunal by contending that Bank Note Press is discharging the sovereign function of the State and; therefore, it could not be construed as a factory or industry. It was pleaded that it consists of various units like factory, administrative block, estate and dispensary which are separate units. Since most of the respondents are engaged in clerical work in administrative block, estate and dispensary unit, they are not entitled to claim over-time, under section 59 of the Factories Act, as they are not working in factory. The petitioner averred that over-time allowance to the respondents as non-industrial employees, is regulated under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, orders dated 17.5.1975. It was further averred that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the applications under section 33-C(2) of the Act because Bank Note Press is not an industry with
