KERALA CERAMICS LTD Vs. KUNDARA CERAMIC STAFF ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision on behalf of the petitioner the learned Government Pleader challenges the two orders passed, one by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the other of the learned District Judge, Quilon, accepting a claim made for payment of overtime wages by the respondents for the period 1 August 1957 to 31 August 1959. '

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 filed the application before the labour court, Quilon, under Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, Central Act 4 of 1936, complaining of non-payment of overtime wages which they are entitled to for the period referred to above. Their claim was no doubt opposed by the petitioner on various grounds and it is seen that the petitioner contested the claim of the respondents on the ground that since they are all members of non-pensionable monthly-paid contingency staff they are not entitled to any payment of overtime wages and it was also contended that they cannot be considered to be workman coming within the definition of that expression as contained in Section 2 (I) of the Factories Act, Central Act 63 of 1948.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that Section 59 of the latter Act indicates the circumstances under which a claim can be made for extra wages for overtime work and it will also be seen that the expressions "manufacturing process," "worker "and "factory "are all defined in Section 2, Clauses (k), (I) and (m), respectively, in the Factories Act. Before the labour court an objection was also taken by the petitioner that the application filed by the respondents is barred at any rate so far as the claim related to overtime wages prior to 9 April 1959. The respondents have riled an application before the labour court to excuse the delay in filing the application on the ground that the question as to whether persons like the respondents are entitled to overtime wages was finally decided against the respondents by the State Government which is running the factory in question only by their order dated 20 August 1959 and therefore the labour court was satisfied that the reasons given by the respondents for filing the application, no doubt beyond the period referred to in the statement, has to be accepted and in consequence the delay in filing the application was excused.