STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. V VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the second respondent herein, the Central Government Labour Court, Madras, on petitions filed by the respective first respondent in these writ petitions under Section 33c (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The facts are not really in controversy. The question for determination also lies in a very narrow compass. However, source of rights and obligations of the parties was sought to be traced with reference to several awards passed, pursuant to provisions contained in the Act. The first respondent in the respective writ petitions filed petitions under Section 33c (2) of the Act claiming overtime wages from the dates on which they were entertained by the petitioner bank as watchmen in several branch offices. The basis on which the claim was made, as contained in the respective claim statements, can be realised from the following passage occurring in the claim statements: The applicant has to remain in the bank's premises throughout the night and on alternate days he has to remain in the banks premises till 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning when the messenger reports for work. So that the applicant had to work 12 hours per day and 14 hours per day on alternate days in the week. Even the alleged rest is cot real rest as the applicant had to sleep in front of the strong room door or as near to it as practicable in the bank's premises and has to wake up at odd hours in order to take the duty in turn. Hence the applicant has to remain on duty, even while purporting to take rest, for 12 hours and on some days for full 14 hours. The applicant is a person employed and governed by the Madras Shops and Establishments Act which provides that the periods of work of a person employed in any establishment shall not exceed with internals for rest for more than 12 hours in any day. The provision of Sastry Award as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and Desai Award also state that hours of work for a watchman chowkidar should not exceed a shift of 8 hours in 24 hours. In the counter-statement filed by the petitioner it was contended, with reference to the duties of watchmen, like the first respondent in the respective writ petitions, as follows: They have to come to duty fully dressed in their uniforms, punch the telltale dial every 15 minutes and also go around the bank premises and patrol the same. In the event of any untoward incident, the watchman on duty is required immediately to arouse the other watchman who is off duty and asleep on the premises, and, if necessary, one of them should go to the police and or the agent of the branch. Both the watchmen report for duty at 6 p. m. and the hours are so arranged that each watchman is on duty in convenient shifts of 2 to 3 hours provided, however, that the total number of hours for which the watchman is required to be on duty do not exceed 8 hours in any day. It is true that the watchman who is not on duty is required to sleep on the premises, but it is submitted that at the time he is sleeping on the premises he is not disharging the duties of a watchman enumerated above and therefore the period during which he is asleep cannot be said to be a period of duty. In fact, each time that a watchman goes off duty, he enters the same in the duty book register maintained for the purpose. Even in the petition, it is admitted that the watchman who is sleeping has to wake up at odd hours, 'in order to take duty in turn. ' It is submitted that the watchman can be on duty and discharge the duties he is required to carry out only when he is awake. It is further submitted that there is no substance or justification in the attempt of the petitioner to include the period in which he is asleep as a period of duty and on that basis claim overtime. " This case of the petitioner, put forward in the counter-statement filed before the second respondent herein, is fully in accord with exhibits P-1 and R-1 filed before the second respondent. Exhibit P-1 is the memorandum of instructions detailing the duties of the bank's watchmen guards. Exhibit R1 is an extract of para 59, Chapter VIII of bank's book of instructions. It deals with the list of duties of watchmen. In exhibit P-1 it is stated: Both the watchmen/guards will report for duty at 6 p. m. every day fully dressed and must not divest themselves of their uniforms or accoutrements at any time during their period of duty and the watchman/guard last on duty will continue to remain until the arrival of the messenger on duty in the morning. Either watchman/guard should be continuously on watch duty and the watchman-guard who is off duty will sleep in front of the strongroom door or as near to it as practicable. The hours of duty will be divided between the two watchmen/guards but it should be ensured that either watchman/guard is not on duty during the same hours on consecutive nights.

(2.) WITH reference to the pleadings, the point of controversy raised by the parties was, whether the period when the watchman is "off-watch" can be said to be "period of duty" so that that time may be counted for the purpose of finding out whether he worked overtime or not. With reference to this controversy, the second respondent was called upon to give a preliminary finding. By order dated 14th July, 1966, it gave a finding in favour of the first respondent in the respective writ petitions and thereafter the second respondent called upon the petitioner herein to file a work-sheet showing the amounts to which the first respondent in the respective writ petitions would be entitled, on the basis of the decision of the second respondent in favour of the first respondent on the preliminary point. After the worksheet was submitted by the petitioner herein on 21st December, 1966, the second respondent passed the impugned order in favour of the first respondent in the respective writ petitions. It is to quash these orders that these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) I may straightaway point out that the controversy between the parties here is in relation to the conclusion of the second respondent on the preliminary point. Once that conclusion of the second respondent on the preliminary point is found to be proper and does not warrant any interference by that court, there is no further argument advanced with regard to the final order passed by the second respondent on 21st December, 1966, with reference to the actual overtime wages to which the first respondent in each of these writ petitions is entitled.