IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Sri G. Siva, learned Senior Designate Counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Counsel Smt. Tara Sharma, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Petitioners approached the Court seeking the prayer as under:

“...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari

(a) Calling for all the relevant and connected records relating to the order in award dated 24.09.2015 in I.D. 7 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad communicated by the Memorandum dated 25.1.2016 by quash or set aside the same holding it as legally unsustainable and suffering from error of jurisdiction.

(b) Consequently declare the action of the Respondent factory in denying the overtime allowance to which the petitioners are entitled to under section 59 of the Factories Act and in its lieu paying a Special Allowance (Fixed amount) as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the provisions of the Factories Act and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(c) Further direct the Respondents to compute and release the arrears of amounts payable towards overtime as per the entitlement of the petitioners under the provisions of section 59 of the Factories Act together with interest at the rate 9 per annum with quarterly rests payable from the date on which the amounts became due and payable till the actual date of payment

and pass such other and further order or orders.....”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD.

A) The relevant portion of the Award dated 28.12.1998 passed in I.D.No.35 of 1998, by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, filed by Sri. M.A. Wahid, Moolchand Sharma and others Grade-C Employees, Security Printing Press, Hyderabad against the Deputy General Manager (HOD), Security Printing Press, Mint Compound, Hyderabad in particular, reads as under:

“ The main relief in this case is based on two provisions of the Factories Act i.e., that the claimants are workers as per the definition under Section 2(l) and the rate of overtime as provided under Section of 59 of Factories Act. The evidence of the petitioners r/w the evidence of management witnesses and the object for which the Factories Act was brought into existence clearly show that the claimants are not workmen as defined in Industrial Disputes Act as by virtue of the definition worker or by virtue of the duties assigned to the worker in Factories Act are taken into account. Even presuming for a moment that they fall under the definition of workman in Industrial Disputes Act, they are hit under the embargo of their salary. Even if they are officers, if they are drawing loss than Rs.1600/- P.M. salary they can be workmen. But even if they are not officers, though they admitted that their designation is officer, if they are drawing more than Rs.1600/- P.M., coupled with their supervisory functions over a lot of people subordinate from Masdoor to foreman, they cannot be workmen. The Industrial disputes Act is silent about the overtime. The second schedule mentions customary benefits. The claim of overtime is not a customary benefit. The ambit of the Factories Act clearly deals with lesser mortals and the petitioners are too big to fit into the shoes of the definition of worker. Thus, they are not entitled to challenge the restriction.

This leaves the only question that other branches of the same organisations were being paid overtime. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly argued that the judgment of CAT, Bombay in O.A. 761/88 deals with the question of non-payment of any overtime the moment the supervisors crossed the basic pay of Rs.2200/- and draws the attention of this Tribunal, that the bench ordered the restriction of payment of O.T of Rs.2200/- basic pay which according to the learned counsel was upheld by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. In respect of the judgment o