UNION OF INDIA Vs. G M KOKIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised by counsel for the Appellants in this appeal is whether the respondents who are employees working in the Factory of India Security Press, Nasik are entitled to overtime wages at twice the normal rate of their wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and the question depends upon the true construction of Section 70 of the latter Act. Since in our view the question of proper construction of the said Section 70 is concluded by a decision of this Court in B. P. Hira v. C. M. Pradhan, (1960) 1 SCR 137 it is unnecessary to indulge in any elaborate statement of facts or discussion of all the rival contentions that were urged before the Central Government Labour Court, Bombay, whose decision rendered on December. 31, 1971 is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the admitted facts are:The India Security Press, Nasik is a very big establishment of the Central Government headed by the General Manager, who is also known as Master, India Security Press. Apart from administrative offices it has a factory. The Press has four wings, namely, (a) the stamp press, (b) currency note press, (c) new currency note press and (d) central stamps stores. There are various categories of workers who have been classified into two groups such as (1) employees working in the administrative offices and (2) those working in the factory. The 78 respondents, belonging to all the four wings, have been employees working in the factory (of these, R-1 to R-3 are Chief Inspectors (Control); R-4 to R-36 are Inspectors (Control); R. 37 and R-38 are Senior Supervisors; R-39 to R-52 are Supervisors; R-53 to R-77 are Junior Supervisors and R-78 is a Store keeper. These 78 respondents filed an application against the Appellants before the Central Government Labour Court, Bombay under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act read with Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. Their case was that though the normal working period for all those who were working under the roof of the factory was 44 hrs. per week, they were, along with the regular factory workers, required to work for more than 44 hrs. a week but the management had been causing loss to them by paying them, unlike the factory-workers, overtime wages at the basic rates even for work done beyond 44 hrs. whereas they were entitled to overtime wages at double the rate of their normal wages (inclusive of dearness allowance, etc.), and as such they were entitled to get the amount of difference ascertained, computed and paid to them; and they claimed this relief in respect of overtime work done during the past 12 years i.e. from 1-1-1956 to 30-8-1968. Along with the application they gave a detailed schedule and the particulars of their claim totalling to an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and odd.

(3.) This claim was resisted by the Appellants on several grounds but we need mention only those grounds which have a bearing on the only point that was raised and argued before us by counsel for the appellants. Inter alia, it was contended that none of the respondents was a 'worker' under Section 2 (1) of the Factories Act and as such they were not entitled to the benefit of Section 59 of that Act lead with Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. It was further contended that even assuming that the respondents were entitled to claim the benefit of the Section 59 read with the Section 70 notwithstanding that none of them was a worker, by reason at Rule 100 made by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 64 of the Fatories Act, Section 59 became inapplicable, to the respondents and therefore could not be availed of by them inasmuch as quite a substantial number of them fell within the category of persons who had been "defined or declared to be holding positions of supervision or management or being employed in a confidential position in the factory." In other words, quite a large number of the respondents fell within the exempted category under Section 64 read with Rule 100 framed by the State Government and, therefore, the benefit of Sec. 59 was not available to them. It was further urged that none of the respondents was an industrial employee, i.e. 'a workman' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such their application under Section 33-C (2) of that Act was not maintainable.