RAMLANSHAN JAGESHAR Vs. BOMBAY GAS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is employed as a coolie in the Mains Department of the Bombay Gas Works belonging to the respondents. At the Gas Works, to which I will hereafter refer as the factory, gas is manufactured. This gas is supplied to consumers through pipes, which are connected to a storage lank. The duties of the petitioner are to excavate and dig trenches for the purpose of laying pipes, through which gas is transported to the customers. The petitioner does not, therefore, work within the premises of the factory, but outside at the places where the pipes are to be laid. The petitioner has been issued an identity card by the Chief Engineer of the factory. His attendance is marked at the place of his work, but his wages arc paid to him at the factory. If he wants leave, he has to go to the factory and apply to the Mains Overseer, whose office is situated there. The petitioner had worked overtime on certain days between December 1956 and November 1957. His remuneration consists of a basic wage and dearness allowance. Under Section 59 of the Factories Act, a worker is to be paid at twice his ordinary rate of wages, for overtime work done by him. The petitioner was, however, paid only twice his basic wage and not twice his basic wage plus dearness allowance for the period for which he had worked overtime. The petitioner, therefore, made an application to the Payment of Wages Authority, in which he contended that he-was entitled to overtime wages at the rate specified in Section 59 of the Factories Act, that Rs. 336-35 were due to him on this account and that as this amount had been wrongly deducted from his wages, the respondents should be directed to pay it to him. He also claimed Rs. 16 more on account of increments. We are not now concerned with that part of his claim. The respondents did not admit the petitioner's claim. They contended that the Factories Act did not apply to the petitioner. The Authority held that the petitioner was a worker governed by the Factories Act and that he was, therefore, entitled to be paid for overtime work at the rate specified in Section 59 of the Factories Act. The Authority, therefore, granted the petitioner's claim and made an order directing the respondents to pay the amount claimed by him. Against this order, the respondents appealed to the Small Cause Court. The learned Judge of that Court did not agree with the view of the Authority that the Factories Act applied to the petitioner. In his view, the petitioner could not be held to be a "worker" while he was employed in the work of laying pipes outside the factory. The evidence in the case showed that the petitioner had also worked overtime for the purpose of connecting the gas pipes to the storage tank in the compound of the factory. In the opinion of the learned Judge, this part of his work was incidental to the manufacturing process. He, therefore, granted a minor part of the petitioner's claim of Rs. 17. 75, but rejected his main claim, which related to wages for overtime work done outside the factory. This order made by the Small Causes Court is being challenged in this petition.

(2.) THE question, which arises for our determination, is at what rate the petitioner should be paid for overtime work clone by him in the course of his normal duties, viz. , that of laying pipes outside the factory. The petitioner has based his claim on three alternative grounds. It has been urged by Mr. Bhandare on his behalf that he is a worker within the meaning of the Factories Act and that, consequently, he should be paid overtime wages under Section 59 of the Act. He has further contended that even if the petitioner is held not to be a worker, the Factories Act would still apply to him by reason of Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The last ground urged is that the petitioner is entitled to be paid for overtime work under Section 63 of the Shops and Establishments Act.

(3.) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 59 of the Factories Act stated that