SHINDE A G Vs. BOMBAY TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order made by the Payment of Wages Authority dismissing their applications for overtime wages. The short facts are that the petitioners are employed with the workshops of the Telephones in Bombay, which in theory means that they are the employees of the Central Government, working with the Telephones Department. Their duties consist of inspection of identity cards, the search of workers, while entering in the various departments and coming cut from the departments, inspecting or checking materials taken from one building to another of the same factory, preventing workmen from entering or leaving factory other than at the appointed time or without authority, keeping a watch on the workmen and material within the factory compound, but outside the building when the workmen of painting or packing are at work. Similarly, they also had other incidental duties not directly connected with the manufacturing process. Their allegation was that they were required to work for more than the prescribed hours of work under the Factories Act, and also under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. They were not paid for their so working and that during the period in respect of which the present complaints were filed, amounts in each application were due to each of the applicants.

(2.) On behalf of the Government, a contention was taken that these watchmen were not workmen within the meaning of "workman" defined in the Factories Act, and that there were not entitled to any overtime allowance as claimed by them and, that the President of India, under Art. 309 of the Constitution, has framed special regulations governing these workmen and they are being paid in accordance with these regulations.

(3.) The authority held that the petitioners were not covered by the definition of "workmen" in the Factories Act. He further held that S. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act was not applicable and, therefore, they were not entitled to get the benefit of the extended provisions of the Factories Act. He further held that they were paid in accordance with rules and regulations framed by the President of India under Art. 309 of the Constitution. Accordingly, be dismissed all these applications.